Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 52 (2020) Crime as Cognitive Constraint prevent further acts of genocide within its borders, including the crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. 20 Myanmar’s incitement landscape thus presents a striking picture of how international law’s current regimes of responsibility appear to result in a gap, incapable of fully accounting for the different actors and technologies involved in the rich and complex narrative of mass violence. Recent trends to address the lacuna for corporate liability in mass atrocity contexts involve hardening the soft law framework contained in the UNGPs through a legally binding instrument, which would impose on states the obligation to prosecute juridical persons at the national level, 21 and to expand the coverage of the Rome Statute to allow the prosecution of juridical persons before the ICC. 22 These movements comprise two sides of the same coin. Although my paper is not focused on individually evaluating these approaches, much less urge proponents to abandon criminal law altogether, I argue broadly that such approaches exhibit an unquestioning attitude towards the primacy of crime to conceptualize harm, which can operate as a cognitive constraint in appreciating different modalities of corporate involvement in mass atrocity contexts. As various scholars, legislators, and policymakers develop theoretical and policy approaches to regulate social media, 23 this article 20. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Gam. v. Myan.), Order, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, ¶¶ 37, 86 (Jan. 23, 2020). 21. See UN Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights, Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises (revised draft as of July 16, 2019), https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCo rp/OEIGWG_RevisedDraft_LBI.pdf. [https://perma.cc/V53H-VXCU]. 22. Id. art. 6(7)(a). 23. See, e.g., Danielle Keats Citron, Extremist Speech, Compelled Conformity, and Censorship Creep, 93 Nᴏᴛʀᴇ Dᴀᴍᴇ L. Rᴇᴠ. 1035, 103742 (2018) (discussing the dangers of the European Commission’s Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online); B-Tech Project, U.N. RTS. OFF. OF THE HIGH COMM’R, HUM. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/B-TechProject.aspx [https://perma.cc/JM67-CPZ2] (seeking “to provide authoritative guidance and resources to enhance the quality of implementation of the United National Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights with respect to a selected number of strategic focus areas in the technology space”); UN Human Rights Council, Rep. of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/38/35, ¶ 2 (Apr. 6, 2018) (recommending human rights principles for content moderation); Ben Wagner, Can Germany’s ‘Lex Facebook’ Be Saved? A Business and Human Rights VOICES (Mar. 13, 2018), Analysis, GLOBAL https://globalvoices.org/2018/03/13/can-germanys-lex-facebook-be- 148