April 2020] THE "WEAPONIZATION" OF FACEBOOK 839 VI. CRITICISM OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY As discussed in Part V, international criminal law theories of accomplice liability could justify holding Facebook criminally liable. However, even if Facebook could be held liable, the next question is whether it should. On one hand, holding Facebook criminally liable is an effective means of encouraging the company to uphold human rights through its company operations. Instead of relying on non-binding, voluntary agreements, the threat of a criminal conviction provides more “teeth” to enforcing better business guidelines. The threat itself, through an indictment or United Nations factfinding report, may provide more accountability than a full-blown trial because corporations deeply care about their reputation. Responding to the Myanmar crisis, Mosseri, chief engineer for Facebook’s Newsfeed, admitted: “At the end of the day I really do think criticism helps us shed light on our blind spots, helps us be more self-aware, and I think that’s painful but healthy.”214 In response to the U.N. Report, Facebook hired Business Social Responsibility (BSR), a nonprofit with expertise in business policing and human rights, to conduct an independent assessment of Facebook’s responsibility in Myanmar.215 Although this report came three years after Facebook became aware of the Myanmar crisis, Facebook took steps in the right direction by conducting an internal audit. On the other hand, punishing social media companies may lead to extreme consequences. One concern is that Facebook could stop operating in the country where it is being held liable altogether. Some argue that certain countries, like Myanmar, may benefit from not having Facebook in its country.216 However, even if Facebook is not used in Myanmar, users may simply turn to other social media platforms. In fact, some reports have stated that some nationalist users have already moved from Facebook to VK, a social media network that is popular in Russian-speaking parts of the world.217 Furthermore, the threat of a criminal conviction may encourage Facebook to over-censor content in an effort to shield itself from criminal liability. Facebook largely hesitates to remove misinformation across its platform for this exact reason.218 Rather than removing content, Facebook downplays information by “demoting false information in the news feed using its algorithm.”219 However, as discussed above, Facebook removed accounts by a 214. April Glaser & Will Oremus, Facebook’s Alleged Role in Myanmar’s Violence Is “Deeply Concerning,” Says Facebook’s News Feed Chief, SLATE (Mar. 15, 2018, 3:13 PM), https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/facebooks-alleged-role-in-myanmars-violence-is-deeply-concerningsays-facebooks-news-feed-chief.html. 215. See Warofka, supra note 178. 216. Mozur, supra note 38. 217. Id. 218. Hayley Tsukayama, Facebook Turns to Artificial Intelligence to Fight Hate and Misinformation in Myanmar, WASH. POST (Aug. 15, 2018, 7:19 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/ 2018/08/16/facebook-turns-artificial-intelligence-fight-hate-misinformation-myanmar/?noredirect= on&utm_term=.67301e624064. 219. Id.