Why media companies insist they're not media companies, why they're wrong, and why it matters

A common position amongst social media platforms and online content aggregators is their resistance to being characterized as media companies. Rather, companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have regularly insisted that they should be thought of purely as technology companies. This paper critiques the position that these platforms are technology companies rather than media companies, explores the underlying rationales, and considers the political, legal, and policy implications associated with accepting or rejecting this position. As this paper illustrates, this is no mere semantic distinction, given the history of the precise classification of communications technologies and services having profound ramifications for how these technologies and services are considered by policy-makers and the courts

Four Views of Japanese Attorneys

The four articles translated below appeared in a special collection entitled: Bengoshi--san Monosatari-or, A Tale of Lawyers. This collection was No. 198 in the Bessatsu Takarajma series, a series that contains such other tides as: How to Develop Brain Power (Noryoku toreningu no gijutsu, No. 41), The Court Game (Salban gemu, No. 169), and The Dark Side of Real Estate (Fudosan no ura, No. 177). As these titles ·reflect, publications in the series are aimed at the mass market. not the world of academics. A further caveat is thatr as with the majority of the articles contained in Bengoshi-san Monogatari, the four articles that appear below were written by reporters and freelance writers, not bengoshi. Moreover, these articles were not based on comprehensive surveys. Rather, they are vignettes, in some cases based on interviews with several attoneys, in other cases based on interviews and visits with just one. As such, however, they provide fascinating glimpses into the work, lifestyles, and concerns of bengoshi. They do so from four perspectives. The first reports on a day in the life of a youngish attorney from a four-member firm based in Ginza; the second reflects the practice of an attorney who serves as a komon bengoshi (an attorney on open-ended retainer) and devotes his practice to the ongoing representation of various companies and individuals; the third examines the lives of attorneys in Shimane Prefecture, which, with only eighteen attorneys in active practice in the entire prefecture, has the fewest practicing attorneys of any prefecture in Japan; and the fourth focuses on the experiences of women attorneys

A New Approach to Antitrust Law: Transparency

The following is a transcript of a 2018 Federalist Society panel entitled Technology, Social Media, and Professional Ethics. The panel originally occurred on November 15, 2018 during the National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C. The panelists were: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Deborah Garza, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP; Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case; and Douglas Melamed, Professor of the Practice of Law, Stanford Law School. The moderator was the Honorable John B. Nalbandian of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Taking Offense with Emily McTernan

Overview & Shownotes Imagine sitting in a staff meeting where one of your co-workers makes a joke about people with disabilities. You’re offended, so you roll your eyes and cross your arms in front of your chest for the rest of the meeting. You might worry that your reaction was pretty insignificant, and didn’t really do any good. My guest, philosopher Emily McTernan, argues that taking offense and showing disapproval, even in small ways, can actually be a force for social good. For the episode transcript, download a copy or read it below. Contact us at [email protected] Links to people and ideas mentioned in the show Emily McTernan, On Taking Offence Amy Olberding, The Wrong of Rudeness: Learning Modern Civility from Ancient Chinese Philosophy Sarah Buss, “Appearing Respectful: The Moral Significance of Manners“ Cheshire Calhoun, “The Virtue of Civility“ Joel Feinberg, Offense to Others Credits Thanks to Evelyn Brosius for our logo. Music featured in the show: “Funk and Flash” by Blue Dot Sessions “Rambling” by Blue Dot SessionsOverview & Shownote

Killing with Kindness: is whale watching in the Salish Sea killing the Southern Resident Killer Whales?

The fish-eating Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) live in the Salish Sea and have been listed as endangered by the U.S and Canada in early 2000s. Their population is still declining with only 72 individuals left in May 2020. Reasons for their endangerment go from toxins in the water to underwater disturbance and lack of prey, although the latter is favourited by scientists. The whale watch industry is being blamed by many because of the number of whale watching boats on the water and their physical proximity of the SRKW. This thesis is focusing on the inhabitants of the Salish Sea and their perception of the SRKW and the whale watch industry and how they are making sense of the situation. Through the use of the Social Representations’ theoretical framework, it is shown that mechanisms such as stories, anthropomorphization, scapegoating and psychological ownership are used by the interviewees to strengthen their social representation of the SRKW but also to take decisions or actions for the pods’ survival. The conclusion of this paper summarizes that the whale watch industry is unfairly scapegoated for its activity as it is not the only actor responsible for the SRKW’s endangerment and disappearance from the Salish Sea. Even more, the whale watch industry is one of the only actors involved in the pods’ survival to have made changes in its practice by creating voluntary guidelines which limit the speed and distance a boat can get around the SRKW. In order to save the endangered SRKW from extinction, most interviewees agree that the priority should be put on solutions to bring the pods’ favourite prey, the Chinook salmon, back in the Salish Sea

Not from Concentrate? Media Regulation at the Turn of the Millennium M arch 18-19, 2005

Transcript from a March 2005 Symposium held in the University of Michigan Law School, Hutchins Hall

Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense: A Practical Text for Critical and Creative Thinking

The information explosion has made us information rich, but wisdom poor. Yet, to succeed in business and in life, we must distinguish accurate from bogus sources, and draw valid conclusions from mounds of data. This book, written for a general adult audience as well as students, takes a new look at critical thinking in the information age, helping readers to not only see through nonsense, but to create a better future with innovative thinking. Readers should see the practicality of enhancing skills that make them more innovative and employable, especially in a day when companies increasingly seek original thinkers, global visionaries, and thought leaders. Targeting high school seniors and college freshmen, but useful to all adult readers, the authors examine surprising and costly mental errors made by respected business leaders, entertainment moguls, musicians, civic leaders, generals and academics. Then, the authors draw practical applications to help readers avoid such mistakes and think more creatively in each field. Although written in an engaging and popular style, over 600 end notes provide authority to this content-rich document. Thus writers, researchers, teachers, and job seekers should find it a useful starting point for research into this important field. Home school teachers and public school educators will find an accompanying free website with lesson plans and teaching tips. It\u27s also a low-cost alternative to expensive texts. (The hard copy is priced reasonably and a pdf of the entire book will be offered free to students on their digital platforms.) Each chapter ends with thought questions and tips for further research.https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facbooks2015/1011/thumbnail.jp

Toxic Public Goods

Everybody loves public goods. After all, they are a perpetual utility machine. Obviously, we want as many of them as possible. But what if the consumption of a public good actually decreases net social welfare? I refer to this kind of public good as a toxic public good. In this essay, I discuss three kinds of potential toxic public goods: trolling, pornography, and ideology, and I reflect on how we might make the production of toxic public goods more efficient