The Law and Technology Centre: the symposium “Regulating Social Media Algorithms,” Jan 17, 2023 (Tue), HKT 9am-12:40pm

The Law and Technology Centre is hosting the symposium “Regulating Social Media Algorithms” on Zoom on January 17, 2023. Below are the event details and the Zoom link. We look forward to seeing you at our Zoom event!

Date/Time:	Tuesday, January 17, 2023 | 9am - 12:40pm (Hong Kong Time)
Zoom link:	https://hku.zoom.us/j/96381811161
Program:	https://www.lawtech.hk/regulating-social-media-algorithms/

For enquiries, please contact Ms. Grace Chan at mcgrace@hku.hk / (+852) 3917 4727.

Haochen Sun Interviewed on National Security Law Implications for Facebook, Twitter, Google in Hong Kong (WSJ)

"Facebook, Twitter, Google Face Free-Speech Test in Hong Kong: New national-security law means authorities can ask companies to delete users or their content"
Newley Purnell and Eva Xiao

The Wall Street Journal
3 July 2020

HONG KONG—U.S. technology titans face a looming test of their free-speech credentials in Hong Kong as China’s new national-security law for the city demands local authorities take measures to supervise and regulate its uncensored internet.

     Facebook Inc. and its Instagram service, Twitter Inc. and YouTube, a unit of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, operate freely in the city even as they have been shut out or opted out of the mainland’s tightly controlled internet, which uses the “Great Firewall” to censor information....

     “Tech companies will absolutely receive more requests to remove information that is allegedly harmful to national security from the relevant authorities,” said Haochen Sun, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong. He said companies will face difficulties especially with borderline cases, such as potential requests to remove songs, for instance, that protesters have used in antigovernment demonstrations... Click here to access the online article.

New Book: Law and New Media: West of Everything (Edinburgh University Press)

Law and New Media: West of Everything
Edited by Christian Delage, Peter Goodrich, Marco Wan
Edinburgh University Press

May 2019, 280 pp.

Description: In this volume, international specialists from new and established domains of law, media, film and virtual studies address the emergence of the jurist in the era of digital transmission. Examining the jurisprudence of new visual technologies – from the cinema of the early twentieth century to the social media of our own time – this volume explores the multiple intersections of these visual technologies and the law from the theoretical insight they generate to the nature of law to the impact they have on doctrinal development.

     Part One tracks the media, the technologies and apparatuses of modern law. It looks specifically at the acoustics of architecture, emblematic texts, films of trials, the prohibition of cameras in courtrooms and the rules of contempt, televised reporting of law, and the multiple fora and chat rooms of Facebook, vblogs, #hashtag law and the mobile-optimised web. Part Two examines the jurisprudential questions raised by new visual and virtual reality technologies of the 21st century. Will social media lead to social law? The force of legal remediation? Virtual courts and online judges? Paperless trials? Electronic discovery? All of these developments impact how we conceive of the practice of law.

Key Features

• Includes an international range of contributions and coverage, from the United States and Europe to the Middle East and China
• Presents a firm historical foundation for considering the connections between law and new forms of media
• Includes a range of contributions from established scholars and promising new voices in the field
• Examines a wide range of new media, from online platforms to virtual reality.

Contributors

Michele Castaneda, Brown University; Emanuele Coccia, EHSS Paris; Christian Delage, Université Paris 8 & Director of IHTP; Claire Demoulin, Université Paris 8 & IHTP; Daniela Gandorfer, Princeton University; Peter Goodrich, Cardozo Law and NYU Abu Dhabi; Thibaud Guichard, Université Paris 8; Christopher Hutton, University of Hong Kong; William MacNeil, Southern Cross University; Antoine Rocipon, Université Paris 8 & IHTP; Raja Sakrani, University of Bonn; Laurent de Sutter, University of Brussels; Marco Wan, University of Hong Kong

Marcelo Thompson on Responsible Communications by Internet Intermediaries (LSE Blog)

"Responsible Communications by Internet Intermediaries"
Marcelo Thompson
LSE Media Policy Project Blog
8 July 2016

In debates concerning Internet intermediary liability, an often-expressed view is that intermediaries (such as Facebook and Google) shouldn’t be turned into adjudicators, who reason and decide about the legal or illegal nature of content they host, and thus about whether or not to take such content down. But is that a plausible view?

     Intermediaries, after all, necessarily must and will make such decisions in one way or another. Once notified of the existence of content that violates people’s privacy, reputation, or children’s rights, can intermediaries avoid weighing those rights against freedom of expression and vice-versa?

     Sure, we could compel intermediaries to defer everything to the courts. Yet, courts don’t work in Internet time, geography, or economy. The consequence would be that, with content remaining online, freedom of expression would always win, and other rights lose.

     But there is a second reason why we wouldn’t want to defer everything to courts. Isn’t it at the very core of any activity to make decisions that are central to it? And what is more central to being a host than making decisions about … hosting? Remove the reason element from any practice and we are left with a rather impoverished expression of it.

     The real problem with Internet intermediaries isn’t having private actors making legal decisions. We all make decisions about right and wrong all the time, and the law is, ultimately, a living expression of the multitude of these decisions. The real problem with Internet intermediaries is rather how, with what diligence, public spirit, and, indeed, responsibility they make the decisions they make.

     Yet, a concern with this ‘how’ is nowhere to be found in existing liability regimes. Rather, these regimes rely on arbitrary, outcomes-based approaches that entirely do away with reason. Their focus is placed on the – however wrongful – legally automatic tilting of the takedown scale to favour rights on one side or another, rather than on the reasoning processes through which the scale tilts... Click here to read the full article.

Michael Davis on the Demands, Evolution and Social Media of the Umbrella Movement (chapter in new CUP book)

"Promises to keep: the Basic Law, the 'Umbrella Movement,' and Democratic Reform in Hong Kong" in M Monshipouri (ed), Information Politics, Protests, and Human Rights in the Digital Age

Michael Davis

 May 2016, Cambridge University Press, pp. 239-266

Abstract: In 2014 Hong Kong youth captured the global imagination in massive protests challenging China’s central government in Beijing over failed promises of democratic reform. Those promises, outlined in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, guaranteed Hong Kong all the ingredients of modern constitutionalism, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Under “one country, two systems” there would be fifty years without change (or as Deng Xiaoping said, maybe more), a high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. The 1990 Hong Kong Basic Law promised democratic reform and the ultimate aim of “universal suffrage.” In the summer of 2013 skeptical Hong Kong democracy activists, under the name “Occupy Central for Love and Peace,” promised to clog Hong Kong’s Central financial district with 10,000 occupying protesters if genuine democracy was not delivered. Instead, in the summer of 2014 Beijing issued a White Paper accusing Hong Kong people of a “confused and lopsided” view and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee issued a decision that turned “universal suffrage” into a Beijing-vetted election. Lead by student activists and the full panoply of tools for modern social movements, hundreds of thousands of protesters occupied the streets. Not a revolution, the social movement that followed demanded compliance with constitutional commitments already made. This chapter considers the demands, evolution and social media of the movement that became known world wide as the “umbrella movement.”  Contact the author regarding the chapter.  

Susan Finder on WeChat Risks and Opportunities

"What you should know about heading a WeChat group"
Susan Finder
South China Morning Post
25 January 2016

WeChat has become an extremely popular way for people in the mainland to communicate, and people (and companies) in Hong Kong use it to reach out to mainland friends and the mainland market.

     A small reminder to those whose names are registered with WeChat: there have been a number of reported criminal cases in which heads of WeChat groups have been prosecuted, although none so far involve people from Hong Kong or people posting on WeChat from Hong Kong. Setting aside the complicated questions of cross-border criminal liability – which require close examination – let’s look at what is set out in the mainland Criminal Law and some recent court reports.

     Users posting on WeChat have been prosecuted under various Criminal Law articles. Some heading a WeChat group have been prosecuted under Article 364 of the Criminal Law, and its related judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court and Procuratorate, punishing the dissemination of obscene materials... Click here to read the article.

"Accessing Chinese legal developments through Wechat"

Susan Finder

Supreme People's Court Monitor (blog)

31 January 2016

Wechat, as most people with an interest in China know, has become the preferred form of social media in China. The legal community in China has taken to it too. 

     Some are official accounts of government entities, including the courts and others are public accounts (公众账号) established by companies, law firms, individuals, and other organizations. Ir Each has its benefits for the user located outside of China. 

     To access these public accounts, it does not matter where in the world you are located, but you need a smart phone to install the Wechat app. The accounts can be accessed through “search official accounts” or “Add contacts” and typing in either the Wechat ID or the name of the account. The accounts can also be accessed through computer or table as well, by searching for the account in question. 

     The official government accounts enable the user to keep current on the issues and latest government position in that area of law–new policy, new legislation, and new reforms. The Supreme People’s Court, for example, has one, as does the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, as well as their local counterparts. 

     Another category is the less official public accounts. Some are affiliated with official organizations, while others are not, while others are in a grey area. The writing tends to be aimed at the professional, with less bureaucratic language. Some accounts are aimed at practicing lawyers, more focused on civil and commercial law than criminal law or administrative law, but both can be found. Some accounts publish writings by the account holder, while others accept articles submitted by followers. One very popular type of article is one that reviews the law and cases in a particular area of law... Click here to read the article.  Susan Finder is a Visiting Fellow of the Centre for Chinese Law.