The Experts below are selected from a list of 57555 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marvin Ammori - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the New New York Times free speech lawyering in the age of google and twitter
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Marvin AmmoriAbstract:When Ben Lee was at Columbia Law School in the 1990s, he spent three months as a summer associate at the law firm then known as Lord, Day & Lord, which had represented the New York Times in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. During those months, Lee listened to the firm’s elder partners recount gripping tales of the Sullivan era and depict their role in the epic speech battles that shaped the future of free expression. Hearing these stories, a young Lee dreamed that one day he too would participate in the country’s leading speech battles and have a hand in writing the next chapter in freedom of expression.When I met with Lee in August 2013, forty-nine years after Sullivan, he was working on freedom of expression as the top lawyer at Twitter. Twitter and other Internet platforms have been heralded for creating the “New media,” what Professor Yochai Benkler calls the “networked public sphere,” for enabling billions around the world to publish and read instantly, prompting a world where anyone — you and I included — can be the media simply by breaking, recounting, or spreading News and commentary. Today, freedom of the press means freedom not just for an institutional press but freedom for all of us. The core business functions of Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms turn on expression — no less than the New York Times’s. The lawyers working for these companies have business reasons for supporting free expression. Indeed, all of these companies talk about their businesses in the language of free speech. Google’s official mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” WordPress.com’s corporate mission is to “democrati[z]e publishing.” Facebook’s is to “give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.”Perhaps even more than other Internet platforms, Twitter thinks of itself as a medium for free speech: its former general counsel calls Twitter “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” its CEO calls it the “global town square,” its cofounder set out as a default principle against blocking speech that “[t]he [t]weets [m]ust [f]low,” and the company instituted a “church-state divide” reminiscent of Newspapers separating employees engaged in content from those selling advertising. Lee told me, “I don’t know what others think with the phrase ‘town square,’ but I think about free expression cases.”Had Lee been born fifty years earlier, his dream of influencing the future of free speech likely would have inspired him to take a job representing the New York Times or some other leading Newspaper at a law firm like Lord Day. Instead, being born to a different time, Lee followed his dream by first taking a job working on free expression at Google, a company with 100 Times the market cap of the New York Times and arguably 100 Times the influence. While at Google, he worked on free expression alongside other well-known free speech lawyers, including Alex Macgillivray and Nicole Wong, whose influence has been documented in major News profiles. These lawyers must address difficult and novel cases concerning the speech of hundreds of millions of users. They have grappled with these questions on everything from the Occupy Wall Street movement to the publication of WikiLeaks. They have navigated issues from UK local law enforcement measures to Chinese state censorship. These lawyers have earned lots of praise, with reporters hoping their practices would become the “industry standard” and claiming that Twitter “beta-tested a spine.” Many reporters credited Twitter’s actions to its speech lawyers. Professor Jeffrey Rosen opined that Google’s lawyers and executives “exercise far more power over speech than does the [U.S.] Supreme Court” and called an administrative law case (that I worked on) involving the blocking of Internet speech “a model for the free-speech battles of the future.”Whether or not Rosen is right that Google lawyers somehow outrank Chief Justice John Roberts, no one should doubt that lawyers like Lee are shaping the future of free expression worldwide.
-
the New New York Times free speech lawyering in the age of google and twitter
Harvard Law Review, 2014Co-Authors: Marvin AmmoriAbstract:INTRODUCTION When Ben Lee was at Harvard Law School in the 1990s, he spent three months as a summer associate at the law firm then known as Lord, Day & Lord, which had represented the New York Times (1) in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. (2) During those months, Lee listened to the firm's elder partners recount gripping tales of the Sullivan era and depict their role in the epic speech battles that shaped the future of free expression. Hearing these stories, a young Lee dreamed that one day he too would participate in the country's leading speech battles and have a hand in writing the next chapter in freedom of expression. When I met with Lee in August 2013, forty-nine years after Sullivan, he was working on freedom of expression as the top lawyer at Twitter Twitter and other Internet platforms have been heralded for creating the "New media," (3) what Professor Yochai Benkler calls the "networked public sphere," (4) for enabling billions around the world to publish and read instantly, prompting a world where anyone--you and I included--can be the media simply by breaking, recounting, or spreading News and commentary. (5) Today, freedom of the press means freedom not just for an institutional press but freedom for all of us. The core business functions of Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms turn on expression--no less than the New York Times's. The lawyers working for these companies have business reasons for supporting free expression. Indeed, all of these companies talk about their businesses in the language of free speech. Google's official mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." (6) WordPress.com's corporate mission is to "democratize publishing." (7) Facebook's is to "give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected." (8) Perhaps even more than other Internet platforms, Twitter thinks of itself as a medium for free speech: its former general counsel calls Twitter "the free speech wing of the free speech party," (9) its CEO calls it the "global town square," (10) its cofounder set out as a default principle against blocking speech that "[t]he [t]weets [m]ust [f]low," (11) and the company instituted a "church-state divide" reminiscent of Newspapers separating employees engaged in content from those selling advertising. (12) Lee told me, "I don't know what others think with the phrase 'town square,' but I think about free expression cases." (13) Had Lee been born fifty years earlier, his dream of influencing the future of free speech likely would have inspired him to take a job representing the New York Times or some other leading Newspaper at a law firm like Lord Day. Instead, being born to a different time, Lee followed his dream by first taking a job working on free expression at Google, a company with 100 Times the market cap of the New York Times and arguably 100 Times the influence. While at Google, he worked on free expression alongside other well-known free speech lawyers, including Alex Macgillivray and Nicole Wong, whose influence has been documented in major News profiles. (14) These lawyers must address difficult and novel cases concerning the speech of hundreds of millions of users. They have grappled with these questions on everything from the Occupy Wall Street movement to the publication of WikiLeaks. (15) They have navigated issues from UK local law enforcement measures to Chinese state censorship. (16) These lawyers have earned lots of praise, with reporters hoping their practices would become the "industry standard" and claiming that Twitter "beta-tested a spine." (17) Many reporters credited Twitter's actions to its speech lawyers. (18) Professor Jeffrey Rosen opined that Google's lawyers and executives "exercise far more power over speech than does the [U.S.] Supreme Court" (19) and called an administrative law case (that I worked on (20)) involving the blocking of Internet speech "a model for the free-speech battles of the future. …
Shahzeen Z Attari - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
paying for what was free lessons from the New York Times paywall
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Jonathan E Cook, Shahzeen Z AttariAbstract:In a national online longitudinal survey, participants reported their attitudes and behaviors in response to the recently implemented metered paywall by the New York Times. Previously free online content now requires a digital subscription to access beyond a small free monthly allotment. Participants were surveyed shortly after the paywall was announced and again 11 weeks after it was implemented to understand how they would react and adapt to this change. Most readers planned not to pay and ultimately did not. Instead, they devalued the Newspaper, visited its Web site less frequently, and used loopholes, particularly those who thought the paywall would lead to inequality. Results of an experimental justification manipulation revealed that framing the paywall in terms of financial necessity moderately increased support and willingness to pay. Framing the paywall in terms of a profit motive proved to be a noncompelling justification, sharply decreasing both support and willingness to pay. Results suggest that people react negatively to paying for previously free content, but change can be facilitated with compelling justifications that emphasize fairness.
Diana Zulli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the changing norms of gendered News coverage hillary clinton in the New York Times 1969 2016
Politics & Gender, 2019Co-Authors: Diana ZulliAbstract:Research on female politicians suggests that women face a double bind. Female politicians must embrace their femininity but not be too feminine, and they must demonstrate masculinity without deviating from gender norms. Hillary Clinton has often struggled with this balance, which has resulted in conflicting and inconsistent portrayals of her in the News. To examine the extent of this coverage, this study provides a longitudinal analysis of Clinton's personal and professional media coverage in the New York Times. A content analysis of News coverage of Clinton from 1969 to 2016 shows that she has largely not been bound to gender labels, gender traits, or mentions of physical appearance. In addition, Clinton was not overly discussed as a novelty or norm challenger. These findings contradict previous literature, demonstrating a potential trend away from using gender as a descriptor for or limitation to female politicians.
Felix Oberholzergee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the New York Times paywall
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Vineet Kumar, Bharat N Anand, Sunil Gupta, Felix OberholzergeeAbstract:On March 28, 2011, The New York Times website became a restricted site where most of the content was protected behind a "paywall." Users who exceeded the limit of 20 free articles per month were required to pay for either a digital or print subscription. The Newspaper industry had been suffering from revenue declines over the past decade, and the transition to digital media was difficult to navigate. Revenues from online advertising were not sufficient to replace the loss of print revenue, and many publishers had explored charging readers for content, with mixed success, where specialized sources like The Wall Street Journal successfully using the model, but several other general News sites had failed. Newspapers and content creators in general were very interested in understanding whether transitioning to the paywall at the most popular News website would succeed, and whether it could become a blueprint for future success as a sustainable business model. There were several difficult issues to examine in determining the digital strategy for The Times. Would consumers remain as engaged with a site protected by a paywall? Would advertisers react positively to such a move that walled off readers? Would readers value both the print and digital versions of the content, or would it become necessary to create New content? The Times had several choices in designing the paywall, including determining the digital content, pricing, as well as how to interface with readers of secondary News websites like blogs that posted links to News articles. Should they design a "leaky" paywall where determined users could easily slip through, or a "bulletproof" paywall like the Financial Times had done, where users had to pay before they could access any content? What choices would provide the foundation for a successful business model?Learning Objective:The purpose of this case is to help understand the key issues in transitioning a content business from the current print medium to the future digital medium. It will involve a deep exploration of how managers must understand product strategy to align the value creation process with the characteristics of the medium or channel, while keeping in mind the landscape of collaborators and competitors has been altered significantly by digital technology. How should a manager determine the content across multiple media? Should they design the product for complementary value creation across media, or are they best thought of as substitutes? Should the company accelerate the transition to digital or try and bolster the value for both media? This case has been taught in the Digital Marketing elective course at Harvard Business School. It would also fit well in elective courses on Product Strategy or Technology Strategy.
Maite Taboada - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
using New York Times picks to identify constructive comments
Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2017Co-Authors: Varada Kolhatkar, Maite TaboadaAbstract:We examine the extent to which we are able to automatically identify constructive online comments. We build several classifiers using New York Times Picks as positive examples and non-constructive thread comments from the Yahoo News Annotated Comments Corpus as negative examples of constructive online comments. We evaluate these classifiers on a crowd-annotated corpus containing 1,121 comments. Our best classifier achieves a top F1 score of 0.84.
