Hi Y’all,
Please see our presentation at the following link on cancel culture.
Suggested opening it in Powerpoint!
Kindly,
Cheryl
& Kim
& Marshall
& Rasheed.
Cancel Culture Presentation
Group Presentation: Trends in Online Defamation
Hi everyone!
Trends in Online Defamation – T Hunt S Arbor
Above is the link to my and Trevor’s group presentation; there is audio embedded in each slide (grey icon), but I think you may need to download the presentation to make it work. Our topic was an overview of online defamation.
We would recommend reading Crookes v Newton (2011 SCC 47):
N owns and operates a website in British Columbia containing commentary about various issues, including free speech and the Internet. One of the articles he posted on it contained shallow and deep hyperlinks to other websites, which in turn contained information about C. C sued N on the basis that two of the hyperlinks he created connected to defamatory material, and that by using those hyperlinks, N was publishing the defamatory information. At trial, the judge concluded that the mere creation of a hyperlink in a website does not lead to a presumption that someone actually used the hyperlink to access the impugned words. The judge agreed that hyperlinks were analogous to footnotes since they only refer to another source without repeating it. Since there was no repetition, there was no publication. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence that anyone other than C used the links and read the words to which they linked, there could not be a finding of publication. A majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that while some words in an article may suggest that a particular hyperlink is an encouragement or invitation to view the impugned site, there was no such encouragement or invitation in this case. In addition, the number of “hits” on the article itself was an insufficient basis for drawing an inference in this case that a third party had read the defamatory words. The dissenting judge held that there was publication. The fact that N’s website had been viewed 1,788 times made it unlikely that no one had followed the hyperlinks and read the impugned article. Furthermore, the context of the article suggested that readers were encouraged or invited to click on the links.
If you are curious about the privacy/copyright case mentioned (Duchess of Sussex v Associated Press), it is linked below.
Samantha & Trevor
Class 10 2021 Slides & Video – “Rogers/Shaw & tangible Benefits”
Video and slides below…
Jon
AI Helps in Suicide Prevention Tools
New AI technology “Riley” is a crisis contact simulator that can be a counsellor training tool, to assist with suicide prevention simulating real life conversations:
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/suicide-prevention-boost-artificial-intelligence-exclusive/story?id=76541481
AI and the future of aesthetic Procedures
AI is changing the ways of aesthetic procedures in the future with 3D modelling:
AI Helps in Finding Diabetes Risk
New technology will help anticipate potential risk to diabetes with an algorithm:
Project: Why Don’t We See American Super Bowl Commercials in Canada?
Hi everyone! Rhys and I did a project on Super Bowl commercials and why we don’t get to see the American ones in Canada.
The link to the Google slides presentation with voiceovers is here.
Please feel free to reach out to Rhys or I if you have any questions or would like to discuss the topic. We really enjoyed learning about it!
Thanks!
Mark Zuckerberg proposes conditional “intermediary liability protection” model for internet platforms
Governments are growing more concerned with large online social media and content platforms in the wake of Camridge Analytica and the general penumbra of misinformation and disinformation. Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before a US senate committee in 2018 and refused to appear before a similar investigation in the UK. The senate committee subpoenaed him, along with the CEOs of Twitter and Google, forcing appearances before congress due to start this Thursday.
In an opening statement today, Zuckerberg proposed a compromise between previous “all-or-nothing” approaches. Rather than deciding as a rule whether to hold platforms liable for user content, Zuckerberg suggested platforms should demonstrate a certain level of precautions in order to be granted freedom from liability.
This model sounds promising in its ability to hold platforms accountable to a reasonable degree without making their general platforms too risky to maintain. It does, however, sound rather cynical in context of Facebook’s historical approach to privacy and moderation in general, and Zuckerberg’s previous statements in particular. We’ll need to keep an eye on further testimony as it unfolds.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/24/22348238/zuckerberg-dorsey-pichai-section-230-hearing-misinformation
US Supreme Court rejects Facebook’s appeal contesting their violation of the Wiretap Act
A 9th Circuit court in California ruled in favour of a class action against Facebook last year, finding that the internet giant’s business practice of tracking users even when signed out violated Californian privacy law and the federal Wiretap Act. Facebook appealed the latter portion to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that they were not an eavsedropper on the communications in question but a party to them. The Supreme Court declined to even hear this appeal, signaling we remain in an exciting and uncertain time with regards to online privacy law.
UK anti-trust probes Facebook practices
Hello Class,
I was compelled by a short article in today’s Vancouver Sun about how the UK’s competition regulator has begun investigating Facebook’s practices. While looking further into this issue, I encountered a report posted in SIlicon Angle by MARIA DEUTSCHER.
In summary, Facebook is being investigated over its alleged anti-trust practices. One concern by the UK’s competition regulator is that Facebook’s collection of user data provides an unfair advantage over competitors, such as other social media networks and online advertisement platforms. Facebook’s Marketplace is one possible area the competition regulator is set to focus on as smaller online advertisement platforms may have access to less information relative to Facebook. The European Commission has also received complaints from rival firms and in response sent a questionaire to inquire on ” the importance of customer data to their business and how their access to information compares with that of Facebook.”
Personally, I wonder how much impact these findings will have to Facebook’s practices outside of the UK and Europe. As we have seen from France and Australia’s response to Google’s access to news sources without proper compensation to appropriate news media outlets, other jurisdictions may be looking to see how successful the UK/EU are in perhaps imposing change to Facebook’s practices. Whether Canada or US competition regulators choose to act after UK/EU have reached its verdict is another story.
https://siliconangle.com/2021/03/19/report-facebook-face-uk-antitrust-probe-within-months/
Communications Law
