The author of this internal company post goes on to ponder on a hypothetical scenario reflecting upon Meta’s ethical responsibility for actively promoting certain actions and types of content: “Nearly everyone judges that it is better to passively let one person die than to actively kill another person to save them – even though both action and inaction result in one life lost (Borg et al., 2006). But, do users understand the active role that Facebook plays in making recommendations and ranking content?”215 Here, the author of the document recognizes that Meta’s use of content-shaping algorithms to actively amplify and promote harmful content bestows a heightened responsibility on the company for any harms caused by that content. This responsibility is far higher than if Meta were only failing to effectively moderate and remove harmful content posted by others. The author of the post goes on to make an impassioned case for a change in Meta’s approach to the harms caused by its content-shaping algorithms: “I think appreciating that we are responsible for harmful experiences on any surface where we actively present content makes clear what we cannot do: we cannot stand by without acting or pretend that we are bystanders to what transpires on these surfaces.” 216 6.2.4 GROUPS Another feature which has been identified as posing specific risks in respect of advocacy of hatred that incites violence and discrimination is Meta’s ‘Groups’ feature on Facebook. According to Meta, Groups are “a place to communicate about shared interests with certain people”, and users can “create a group for anything.”217 In 2016, internal Meta research reported on by the Wall Street Journal found “extremist content thriving in more than one-third of large German political groups on the platform”, and most significantly, it also recognized that Meta’s content-shaping algorithms were responsible for the growth of these groups.218 The report noted: “The 2016 presentation stated that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools” and that most of the activity came from the platform’s “Groups You Should Join” and “Discover” algorithms: “Our recommendation systems grow the problem [emphasis added].”219 Despite the warning signs that were emerging from internal company research, Meta doubled down on prioritization of groups in May 2019 as the company unveiled a major pivot towards more ‘community’, as revealed in a Tech Crunch article: “Everywhere there are friends, there should be Groups,” says the head of the Facebook app, Fidji Simo… But Facebook’s goal is not only to have 2.38 billion people using the feature – the same number as use its whole app – but to get them all into meaningful Groups that emblematize their identity [emphasis added].220 The Facebook Papers enable a deeper understanding than ever before of how Meta’s content-shaping algorithms work in practice – and how they promote human rights harms. These damning internal The Facebook Papers, “Facebook and Responsibility”, 09 March 2020, documentcloud.org/documents/21594152tier2_rank_other_0320, p. 6. 215 The Facebook Papers, “Facebook and Responsibility”, 09 March 2020, documentcloud.org/documents/21594152tier2_rank_other_0320, p. 8. 216 217 Facebook, Help Centre: ‘Groups’, facebook.com/help/1629740080681586 The Wall Street Journal, “Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less Divisive”, 26 May 2020, wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499 218 The Wall Street Journal, “Facebook Executives Shut Down Efforts to Make the Site Less Divisive”, 26 May 2020, wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499 219 Tech Crunch, “Facebook pivots to what it wishes it was”, 2 May 2019, techcrunch.com/2019/05/01/aspirationbook/?guccounter=1, emphasis added 220 THE SOCIAL ATROCITY META AND THE RIGHT TO REMEDY FOR THE ROHINGYA Amnesty International 44