Is 'Truthtelling' Online Reasonable? Restoring Context to Cyber Defamation Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author thanks the Law Commission of Ontario and acknowledges the research initially carried out as a contract researcher for the LCO. The views expressed this subsequent work are not necessarily those of the LCO. This paper proposes to re-orient cyber defamation analysis towards a Civilian approach, whose hallmark flexibility and adaptability lends itself particularly well to the digital age. Indeed, harnessing the ordinary rules of negligence, and – in principle – foregoing defences , the Civilian construction is chiefly interested in the contextual reasonableness of the impugned expression (rather than in its truth or falsity strictly speaking), in contradistinction to its somewhat categorical Common Law counterpart. It is therefore recommended that defamation law evolve towards a ‘negligence standard’ in common law parlance. Plainly put, this would require the plaintiff to make a showing of the contextual unreasonableness of impugned speech, an analysis which subsumes truthfulness and obviates the need for defences, this comporting with constitutional imperatives. Moreover and compounding the importance of revisiting the matter, “in a world where boundaries are porous and shifting” – and data is global, a cyber-publication in one jurisdiction may be read and reposted anywhere in the world, thereby potentially causing reputational harm transcending traditional or national parameters. Therefore, enforcing rights flowing from conduct originating outside of Canada increasingly preoccupies our courts who are gradually fearful of losing the ability to enforce local norms and policy or rectify domestically felt harm originating elsewhere. This preoccupation with 'judicial helplessness' in Internet cases is evidenced by the notably liberalized jurisdiction test in Goldhar and Black inter alia and by two landmark cyber jurisdiction oriented cases handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2017 alone. It is therefore essential to at least summarily address the jurisdiction question – if we are to have a true contextual understanding of cyber defamation as recommended herein.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it