of the 2017 atrocities in northern Rakhine State and triggered by the IIFFMM’s findings in relations to the Facebook platform’s “significant” role in the violence.328 In its section on non-discrimination, the Rohingya are not mentioned at all.329 OECD Guidance states that, in order for a company’s responsibility to provide remedy to affected communities to be triggered: Contribution must be substantial, meaning that it does not include minor or trivial contributions. 330 Meta’s contribution to adverse human rights impacts against the Rohingya was substantial in nature (not minor or trivial) because the core features of the Facebook platform (specifically its news feed, ranking, and recommendation algorithms) actively amplified, promoted, and delivered posts inciting advocacy of hatred and violence against the Rohingya to the target audiences who were most likely to act upon them. The effects of these actions for the Rohingya were especially severe because of the near-total dominance of the Facebook platform within Myanmar’s online environment at the time. The substantial nature of this contribution is further underlined by the company’s repeated failures to undertake appropriate human rights due diligence which could have effectively prevented or mitigated human rights risks, in addition to the severity of the consequences of the company’s failures. Amnesty International’s systematic analysis of Meta’s role in the respect of the serious human rights abuses suffered by the Rohingya of Northern Rakhine State in 2017 enables the following conclusions: • Content that advocated hatred, violence, and discrimination against the Rohingya, as well as other dehumanizing and discriminatory anti-Rohingya, content was rife on the Facebook platform in the months and years leading up to the 2017 atrocities in Northern Rakhine State, with direct impacts on the right to equality and the right to be free from discrimination for the Rohingya. • The prevalence of this content contributed to the offline violence perpetrated against the Rohingya, with knock-on impacts on the rights to life and freedom from torture, the right to education, to adequate housing and an adequate standard of living, and the right to food. • Meta’s content-shaping algorithms actively amplified and promoted divisive and inflammatory content, including content which dehumanized and discriminated against the Rohingya. • Meta knew or should have known that it risked contributing to adverse human rights impacts against the Rohingya, having conducted multiple internal studies in relation to its algorithms and having received multiple warnings from civil society activists in relation to Myanmar-specific risks. • Meta failed to engage in adequate human rights due diligence, which could and should have identified many of the risks that were present in relation to its operations in Myanmar. Meta also failed to enact effective and appropriate risk mitigation measures which could have prevented or mitigated these harms. • Meta substantially contributed to adverse human rights impacts against the Rohingya, and the company has a responsibility under international human rights standards to remediate the harm suffered by this community. 328 BSR, 2018, “Human Rights Impact Assessment: Facebook in Myanmar.” 329 BSR, 2018, “Human Rights Impact Assessment: Facebook in Myanmar.” 330 OECD Due Diligence Guidance (previously cited), p. 70. THE SOCIAL ATROCITY META AND THE RIGHT TO REMEDY FOR THE ROHINGYA Amnesty International 63