Complicity of Social Media Companies in Inciting Genocide Hakim sources. For example, a public official or the leader of a human rights group could have channels to directly notify the CEO. Such a notification would need to demonstrate the existence of a systematic campaign to incite genocide on the CEO’s platform. Isolated notices of hate speech or deeply offensive language would be insufficient. Assuming the veracity of such a report, the CEO’s subsequent actions would bear heavily on his or her culpability. Once he or she has the requisite mens rea of knowledge, continuing to provide inciters with a platform would merit a finding of complicity. With respect to Myanmar, the operative question is whether Zuckerberg knew of the Tatmadaw’s campaign against the Rohingya. Whereas the case for actus reus seems plausible, the case for mens rea is less convincing, at least based on publicly available information. After Zuckerberg announced Internet.org, the initiative that eventually brought Facebook to Myanmar, he said the following in an interview with WIRED: “Our service is free, and there aren’t developed ad markets in a lot of these countries. So for a very long time this may not be profitable for us. But I’m willing to make that investment because I think it’s really good for the world.”203 Many of Zuckerberg’s public comments around the Internet.org announcement and thereafter reflect a similar optimism about the potential of bringing Facebook to Myanmar.204 Misguided as it may have been, such remarks do not evince knowledge that the Tatmadaw would use the platform to incite genocide. And according to The New York Times, the propaganda campaign went “undetected.”205 Moreover, the company’s scant devotion of translation resources to Myanmar suggests that Zuckerberg did not personally know about the ongoing and systematic attempt to dehumanize the Rohingya.206 Assuming these reports are true, Facebook’s CEO does not appear to satisfy the requisite mens rea. Thus, even if Zuckerberg satisfied the relevant actus reus, a finding of complicity would be unmerited, although further investigation would be necessary to draw a firm conclusion either way. 2. The manager In contrast to the CEO, the manager does not direct all aspects of the social media company. For the sake of this analysis, he or she is placed in a senior-level position in the company, with a more defined portfolio of responsibilities. The manager directs a narrower set of operations and, as such, is more likely than the 203 204 205 206 Steven Levy, Zuckerberg Explains Facebook's Plan to Get Entire Planet Online, WIRED (Aug. 26, 2013), http://perma.cc/3L6M-7558. See, for example, John Griffin, Mark Zuckerberg's Big Idea: The 'Next 5 Billion' People, CNNMONEY (Aug. 21, 2013), http://perma.cc/36UU-TXS9 (“[W]e just believe that everyone deserves to be connected, and on the Internet, so we're putting a lot of energy towards this.”). Mozur, supra note 165. See Stecklow, supra note 10 (“In early 2015, there were only two people at Facebook who could speak Burmese reviewing problematic posts.”). Summer 2020 113