Q4 2014 & Q1 2015 Quick Links Part 3 (Facebook)
* What do people mean when they “like” something on Facebook? This article offers some hypotheses (possibly paywalled): “When “Like”-Minded People Click: Facebook Interaction Conventions, the Meaning of “Speech” Online, and Bland v. Roberts.” Prior blog post.
* Wired: The Laborers Who Keep Dick Pics and Beheadings Out of Your Facebook Feed
* Medium: “Facebook has determined that algorithms alone are not enough to determine the makeup of one’s News Feed. The mix is so important — not just to individuals but to collateral players such as the news business, the apps industry, and the Internet meme machine — that the ultimate tech company must acquaint itself with the Antediluvian art of asking people directly what they want.”
* Fusion: Many, many Facebook users still don’t know that their news feeds are filtered by an algorithm
* Emerald City Management, L.L.C. v. Kahn, 2014 WL 6847859 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2014):
Plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence regarding Defendants’ control of Downtown Fever’s Facebook account to warrant additional injunctive relief. According to the testimony presented at the hearing, Kahn has prevented Plaintiffs from accessing their Downtown Fever Facebook account and will not make the password available to them. Such, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs, causes them irreparable harm in the Texas marketplace.
The Court finds that Defendants should be ordered to transfer to Plaintiffs complete control of Downtown Fever’s account on Facebook by providing Plaintiffs’ counsel with the password and any other required materials to access and assume control of the account under an administrator status. Defendants should also be enjoined from making any alterations to or accessing (for any purpose other than to transfer the control to Plaintiffs) Downtown Fever’s Facebook account.
* Caputi v. Topper Realty Corp., 2015 WL 893663 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2015):
Here, the Court agrees with the reasoning in Giacchetto, and declines to give Defendants complete access to Plaintiff’s Facebook account for the purpose of identifying photographs, postings or private messages that may appear inconsistent with someone experiencing emotional distress. Rather, Defendants are entitled to a sampling of Plaintiff’s Facebook activity for the period November 2011 to November 2013, limited to any “specific references to the emotional distress [Plaintiff] claims she suffered” in the Complaint, and any “treatment she received in connection [there]with.” Id. at *116. Defendants may renew their application for the balance of Plaintiff’s Facebook account information upon probative evidence uncovered from the sampling, if any. In addition, in mounting a defense, Defendants are entitled to any Facebook activity, for the same time period, that refers to an alternative source or cause of Plaintiff’s alleged distress. See id. Accordingly, the motion is granted, in part, as to Plaintiff’s Facebook account information to substantiate her claims of emotional distress. Plaintiff is also directed to preserve all of her Facebook activity for the duration of this litigation.
* Silva v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 2015 WL 1275840 (D. Conn. March 19, 2015):
Defendant’s request for an unredacted copy of all of Plaintiff’s Facebook communications is too broad. There are approximately 2,254 pages of messages connected with Plaintiff’s account. The Court credits Plaintiff’s assurances that not all of these messages are relevant to the instant matter….
Plaintiff represents that he has already produced all responsive Facebook communications. Defendant contends that the manner in which Plaintiff redacted what communications he has produced make it difficult to ascertain the context of the messages, and that Plaintiff should not be able to determine which messages are relevant. Defendant has not, however, persuaded this Court that there is reason to compel Plaintiff to produce all posts in non-redacted form. For example, Doc. 23–12, filed with Defendant’s motion, is a sample of redacted messages Plaintiff produced in the supplemental production. The Court notes that the conversation here jumps from topic to topic: Plaintiff and his friend discuss Plaintiff’s job search in one post, and then attempt to make plans to get together in the next. Just based on this sampling and its shifting, scattered tendencies, it is possible that non-relevant material would be sporadically interspersed within the communications. Court sees no reason to believe, contrary to Defendant’s assertions, that redactions made mid-sentence, or heavy redactions on certain pages, are an effort on Plaintiff’s part to flout discovery rules. Without more, the Court cannot order the relief Defendant requests….
Even if the Court determines that emotional distress damages may be awardable to Plaintiff, this is still not a basis for ordering all of the communications to be disclosed in unredacted form.