Why We Mourn For Strangers

The death of Matthew Perry made me reflect on my emotional response to a stranger’s passing. I found intriguing research that explores the psychological concept of parasocial relationships and cybermourning to help me understand why I experience a sensation of loss when an entertainer’s final curtain is lowered. 

tl;dr
Using thematic analysis, the researcher studied 1,299 condolences posted on the obituary website Legacy.com to come up with themes that opened the window to cybermourning and parasocial relationships on the night worldly-famous comedian and actor Robin Williams hanged himself, August, 11, 2014. In addition to the themes that emerged, loss, appreciation and celebration, the study revealed that a majority of cybermourners had developed a deep parasocial relationship with Williams and viewed him as more than a comedian. They saw him as a close friend or relative who had died. The deeply emotional posts outnumbered two to one the posts from cybermourners whose condolences were respectful, short and generic. Fans also shared intimate life struggles associated with drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness with their virtual “close” friend Williams who was also struggling with the same demons. This paper discusses cybermourning, parasocial relationships and the pros and cons of such online relationships.

Make sure to read the full paper titled More than a Comedian: Exploring Cybermourning and Parasocial Relationships the Night Hollywood Star Robin Williams Died by Kim Smith at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078704


On October 28, 2023 news broke about the passing of television actor and “Friends” star Matthew Perry. The Hollywood Reporter described his passing feels like “when a Beatle dies”. Perry struggled with alcoholism his entire career and he was outspoken about mental health. I can’t remember when I first watched the show Friends. When I watched it, I never reached a level of binge-watching episode after episode. Yet the writers delivered a storyline so universally applicable that we, as the audience, really bought into a group of friends just trying to grow up and find their place in this ever-expanding world. It was my story. It was your story. It was our story. 

Perry’s passing reminded me of the deaths of other celebrities: Steve Jobs, Anthony Bourdain, Chester Bennington, Sean Connery, Paul Walker, Carrie Fisher, Kirstie Alley, Betty White, and many more. But perhaps most notable among them is Robin Williams. The paper starts by explaining the concept of cybermourning as a process to take grief to social media and immortalize it in cyberspace. Facebook will become a place where more deceased than alive profiles make up their account statistics. Websites like legacy.com offer a last farewell that can be revisited at all times. It is a collective experience as others are allowed to share their condolences. The concept of our human response to death itself is complex. Mankind has always mourned the passing of one of us. Mourning can be described as an elevated emotional grief induced by the outside event of the passing of a loved one. It does help to reunite those left behind, but it also serves as a healing period. On the other hand, parasocial relationships are a concept almost entirely tied to the onset of audiovisual communication technology, e.g. cinema, television, and streaming. It describes the identification of the viewer with the portrayed character. People seek out similarities, similar behaviors, and other personality traits. In extreme cases, people want to be that person (even when they know it is a fictional character that only exists in a Hollywood storyline). The internet and relentless news coverage impact the intensity of a parasocial relationship. 

Against this backdrop, the author designed two research questions to study the public’s emotional response when actor Robin Williams died. 

  1. What themes explain how cybermourners mourned the night Williams died?
  2. What happened to cybermourners who developed parasocial relationships with Williams?

The research reviewed 1,299 responses posted to the obituary page of Robin Williams on legacy.com. His page continues to receive postings to this day. They identified three themes among the posts: loss, appreciation, and celebration. Most strikingly, they found people had developed a near-intimate relationship with Robin Williams because of the shared emotional struggles, alcoholism, and humor that get us through the day. The internet’s permanent access and appearance of a “personal space” that lives on our computers or in our phones lowered inhibitions to share fears, secret desires, and vulnerable emotions associated with the career of Robin Williams.  

Early psychological research suggested these types of parasocial relationships are linked to fears, isolation, and diminished social experiences. More recent research, however, found that parasocial relationships, and their natural end, may invoke cathartic effects that help people to develop a better understanding of themselves and the world around them. Cybermourning can provide a therapeutic relief that is shared by thousands or millions of others online. Therefore it can neutralize the experience of grief and sadness that commonly occur with learning about someone’s death. Lastly, it can raise awareness of the universal human struggle that we all experience – from addiction to mental health. 

Matthew Perry playing Chandler on Friends helped millions of non-English speakers to learn English. The show introduced everyday cultural norms, although exaggerated, to an audience unfamiliar with American customs and traditions. This helped shape the social fabric of the United States. Anyone lucky to watch Friends during their late teenage years may look back fondly on the curiosity that surrounded social experiences, your first relationship, your first disagreement, your first job loss, your first financial struggle, and all these other experiences that we all universally endure and overcome. 

Perhaps learning about Chandler’s passing made me reflect on my mortality and how fleeting this experience that we call life really is (loss). It is a stark reminder of the importance of healthy relationships, compassion, and compromise (appreciation) – but really that these things are worth working for because they are so rare and the cast of Friends made us whole showing us that (celebration).   

W44Y23 Weekly Review: SEC v. SolarWinds, Mariah Carey, and Facebook Ban

+++ SEC Sues SolarWinds For Fraud In Aftermath of Russian Cyberattack
+++ Mariah Carey Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over “All I Want For Christmas Is You” Song
+++ DC’s Attorney General Sues RealPage and Landlord Over Rent-Fixing Scheme


SEC Sues SolarWinds For Fraud In Aftermath of Russian Cyberattack
The SEC is suing SolarWinds, an IT firm, alleging fraud and inadequate internal controls before a major 2019 cyber-espionage incident orchestrated by Russian hackers. SolarWinds is accused of overhyping cybersecurity and downplaying vulnerabilities. SolarWinds disputes the claims, stating that they have maintained proper cybersecurity controls and will defend their position in court.

Read the full report on CNBC.
Read the case SEC v. SolarWinds Corp, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:23-cv-09518


Mariah Carey Faces Copyright Lawsuit Over “All I Want For Christmas Is You” Song
Mariah Carey is facing a $20 million copyright infringement lawsuit over her holiday classic song, “All I Want for Christmas is You.” Songwriter Andy Stone alleges that Carey’s song is remarkably similar to his 1989 version, predating Carey’s. This is the second lawsuit from Stone, who failed to reach a settlement with Carey. Her attempt to trademark “Queen of Christmas” was also denied. “All I Want for Christmas is You” remains a highly profitable holiday song.

Read the full report on Forbes.
Read the case Andy Stone v. Mariah Carey, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:23-cv-09216


DC’s Attorney General Sues RealPage and Landlord Over Rent-Fixing Scheme
The District of Columbia Attorney General’s office has filed a lawsuit against 14 major landlords and RealPage, a property management software company, alleging collusion to illegally raise rents for over 50,000 apartments by sharing data with the software. This alleged rent-fixing scheme violates D.C.’s Antitrust Act, costing renters millions of dollars. The lawsuit includes publicly traded real estate investment trusts like UDR, AvalonBay Communities, and Equity Residential. RealPage’s software, used by a significant portion of apartments in the district, is at the center of the controversy. The attorney general’s office is seeking financial penalties and the appointment of a corporate monitor to prevent further collusion.

Read the full report on CNBC
Read the case District of Columbia v. RealPage et alia, Superior Court of the District of Columbia


Facebook Parent Meta Faces Permanent Ban In Europe Over Its Advertising Model
The European data regulator has extended a ban on “behavioral advertising” on Facebook and Instagram to all 30 countries in the European Union and the European Economic Area. This advertising practice involves targeting users by collecting their data, and it is a setback for Meta Platforms, the owner of Facebook and Instagram. Meta could face fines of up to 4% of its global turnover. The European Data Protection Board instructed the Irish data regulator, where Meta’s European headquarters are located, to impose a permanent ban on behavioral advertising. Meta has said it will offer users in the EU and EEA the opportunity to consent and will introduce a subscription model to comply with regulatory requirements. The ban affects around 250 million Facebook and Instagram users in Europe.

Read the full report on Datatilsynet (Norway’s Data Watchdog). 
Read the full report on EDPB.
Read the full report on Reuters

More Headlines

  • AI: Artists Lose First Round of Copyright Infringement Case Against AI Art Generators (via The Hollywood Reporter)
  • AI: Scarlett Johansson hits AI app with legal action for cloning her voice in an ad (via The Verge
  • AI: AI Image Generator Can’t Escape Artists’ Copyright Class Action Lawsuit Over AI Training (via Billboard)
  • Antitrust: FTC’s Lina Khan warns Big Tech over AI (via Stanford)
  • Privacy: The Tech That’s Radically Reimagining the Public Sphere (via The Atlantic
  • Privacy: US hospital groups sue Biden administration to block ban on web trackers (via Reuters
  • Privacy: Facebook in Payment Spat Over $725 Million Privacy Settlement (via Bloomberg Law)

In Other News (or publications you should read)

This post originated from my publication Codifying Chaos.

W43Y23 Weekly Review: More Meta Legal Woes, YouTube, and AI Chat Bubble

+++ 41 U.S. States Sue Meta Alleging Instagram & Facebook Are Addictive To And Harm Kids
+++ YouTube Successfully Defends Its Copyright Repeat Infringer Policy In Court
+++ New York AG Sues Gemini, Genesis, and Digital Currency Group Over $1 Billion Crypto Fraud


41 U.S. States Sue Meta Alleging Instagram & Facebook Are Addictive To And Harm Kids
Forty-one U.S. states and D.C. are suing Meta, alleging that Instagram and Facebook’s addictive features harm children’s mental health. The lawsuits stem from a 2021 investigation, accusing Meta of misleading children about safety features, violating privacy laws, and prioritizing profit over well-being. This reflects bipartisan concern about social media’s impact on kids. The lawsuits seek penalties, business practice changes, and restitution. The legal actions followed revelations that Instagram negatively affected teen girls’ body image. While research on social media’s effect on mental health is inconclusive, these lawsuits show states taking action. Meta has made some safety changes, but it faces continued scrutiny and legal challenges.

Read the full report in the Washington Post
Read the full report in the New York Times.
Read the case States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawai’i, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin v. Meta Platforms Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:23-cv-05448 


YouTube Successfully Defends Its Copyright Repeat Infringer Policy In Court
Business Casual, a website, filed copyright infringement lawsuits against RT and YouTube. The case against RT involved the alleged use of Business Casual’s videos, modified with “parallax” technology. RT ignored the case, citing financial constraints due to sanctions. Business Casual’s case against YouTube argued that it infringed by allowing RT to infringe. The court rejected this, and Business Casual appealed. The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s decision, stating that Business Casual’s claims were without merit and that YouTube was not liable for copyright infringement. The court also clarified that YouTube’s repeat infringer policy is not a separate cause of action under the DMCA.

Read the full report on Techdirt.
Read the case Business Casual Holdings, LLC v. YouTube, LLC et alia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 22-3007-cv 


New York AG Sues Gemini, Genesis, and Digital Currency Group Over $1 Billion Crypto Fraud
New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James, is suing cryptocurrency companies Gemini, Genesis, and Digital Currency Group, alleging they misled investors and caused over $1 billion in losses. Gemini marketed a high-yield program with Genesis but allegedly failed to disclose the risks. James seeks to ban these firms from the investment industry in New York and obtain damages. This legal action follows previous lawsuits against these companies for issues like customer protection and selling unregistered securities.

Read the full report on The Verge
Read the case The People of the State of New York v. Gemini/Genesis/Digital Currency Group et al, Supreme Court of the State of New York

More Headlines

  • AI: Are we being led into yet another AI chatbot bubble? (by FastCompany)
  • AI: Why AI Lies (by Psychology Today)
  • AI: Biden to sign executive order expanding capabilities for government to monitor AI risks (by The Hill
  • Copyright: An AI engine scans a book. Is that copyright infringement or fair use? (by Columbia Journalism Review)
  • Free Speech: Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig on why AI and social media are causing a free speech crisis for the internet (by The Verge)
  • Healthcare: Is AI ready to be integrated into healthcare? (by Silicon Republic)
  • Insurance: Let’s “chat” about A.I. and insurance (by Reuters
  • Privacy: Artists Allege Meta’s AI Data Deletion Request Process Is a ‘Fake PR Stunt’ (by WIRED)
  • Social Media: Old laws open up a new legal front against Meta and TikTok (by Politico)
  • Social Media: The UK’s controversial Online Safety Bill finally becomes law (by The Verge)

In Other News (or publications you should read)

This post originated from my publication Codifying Chaos.

About Black-Box Medicine

Healthcare in the United States is a complex and controversial subject. Approximately 30 million Americans are uninsured and at risk of financial ruin if they become ill or injured. Advanced science and technology could ease some of the challenges around access, diagnosis, and treatment if legal and policy frameworks allow innovation to balance patient protection and medical innovation.  

tl;dr
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly moving to change the healthcare system. Driven by the juxtaposition of big data and powerful machine learning techniques, innovators have begun to develop tools to improve the process of clinical care, to advance medical research, and to improve efficiency. These tools rely on algorithms, programs created from health-care data that can make predictions or recommendations. However, the algorithms themselves are often too complex for their reasoning to be understood or even stated explicitly. Such algorithms may be best described as “black-box.” This article briefly describes the concept of AI in medicine, including several possible applications, then considers its legal implications in four areas of law: regulation, tort, intellectual property, and privacy.

Make sure to read the full article titled Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: Applications and Legal Issues by William Nicholson Price II, JD/PhD at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078704


When you describe your well-being to ChatGPT it takes about 10 seconds for the machine to present a list of possible conditions you could suffer from, common causes, and treatment. It offers unprecedented access to medical knowledge. When you ask how ChatGPT concluded your assessment, the machine is less responsive. In fact, the algorithms that power ChatGPT and other AI assistants derive their knowledge from a complex neural network of billions of data points. Information – some publicly available, others licensed and specifically trained into the model’s predictive capabilities – that is rarely analyzed for accuracy and applicability to the individual circumstances of each user at the time of their request. OpenAI, the current market leader for this type of technology, is using reinforced learning from human feedback and proximal policy optimization to achieve a level of accuracy that has the potential to upend modern medicine by making healthcare assessments available to those who cannot afford it. 

Interestingly, the assessment is something of a black box for both medical professionals and patients. Transparency efforts and insights into the algorithmic structure of machine learning models that power these chat interfaces still seem to be insufficient to explain reason and understanding about how the specific recommendation came to be and whether the prediction is tailored to the users’ medical needs or derived from statistical predictions. The author paints a vivid picture by breaking down the current state of medicine/healthcare and artificial intelligence and characterizing it with the “three V’s”: 

  1. Volume: large quantities of data – both public and personal, identifiable (health) information that is used to train ever-voracious large language models. Never before in history has mankind collected more health-related data through personal fitness trackers, doctor appointments, and treatment plans than it does today.  
  2. Variety: heterogeneity of data and access beyond identity, borders, languages, or culture references. Our health data comes from a wealth of different sources. While wearables track our specific wellbeing; location and travel data may indicate our actual wellbeing. 
  3. Velocity: fast access to data – in some instances with seconds to process medical data that otherwise would have taken weeks to process. Arguably, we have come a long way since WebMD broke down the velocity barrier. 

The “three V’s” allow for quick results, but usually lack the why and how a conclusion has been reached. The author coined this as “Black-Box Medicine”. While this creates some uncertainty, it also creates many opportunities for ancillary medical functions, e.g. prognostics, diagnostics, image analysis, and treatment recommendations. Furthermore, it creates interesting legal questions: how does society ensure black-box medicine is safe and effective and how can it protect patients and patient privacy throughout the process? 

Alomst immediately the question of oversight comes to mind. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate “the practice of medicine” but could be tasked to oversee the deployment of medical devices. Is an algorithm that is trained with patient and healthcare data a medical device? Perhaps the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or local State Medical Boards can claim oversight, but the author argues disputes will certainly arise over this point. Assuming the FDA would oversee algorithms and subject them to traditional methods of testing medical devices, it would likely subject algorithms to clinical trials that couldn’t produce scientific results because an artificial intelligence, by virtue of its existence, changes over time and adapts to new patient circumstances. Hence the author sees innovation at risk of slowing down if the healthcare industry is not quick to adopt “sandbox environments” that allow safe testing of the technology without compromising progress. 

Another interesting question is who is responsible when things go wrong? Medical malpractice commonly traces back to the doctor/medical professional in charge of the treatment. If medical assessment is reduced to a user and a keyboard will the software engineer who manages the codebase be held liable for ill-conceived advice? Perhaps the company that employs the engineer(s)? Or the owner of the model and training data? If a doctor is leveraging artificial intelligence for image analysis – does it impose a stricter duty of care on the doctor? The author doesn’t provide a conclusive answer and courts yet have to decide case law of this emerging topic in healthcare. 

While this article was first published in 2017, I find it to be accurate and relevant today as it raises intriguing questions about governance, liability, privacy, and intellectual property rights concerning healthcare in the context of artificial intelligence and medical devices in particular. The author leaves it to the reader to answer the question: “Does entity-centered privacy regulation make sense in a world where giant data agglomerations are necessary and useful?”   

W42Y23 Weekly Review: UMG v. Anthropic AI, Bad Bunny’s Fish Market, Costco and Meta Pixel Lawsuit, Greer v. Kiwi Farms, and Google Data Scraping

+++ Universal Sues Anthropic Over Unlicensed, AI-Generated Music Lyrics
+++ Bad Bunny, J Balvin Face Copyright Lawsuit Over “Fish Market” Drum Pattern
+++ Costco Sued Over Sharing Consumer Data With Facebook Through Meta Pixel Tracking
+++ Book Author Beats Copyright Infringement Platform; Setting Concerning Precedent
+++ Google Attempts To Dismiss Lawsuit Over Scraping User Data To Train Its BARD AI


Universal Sues Anthropic Over Unlicensed, AI-Generated Music Lyrics
Record label Universal Music Group and other music publishers have filed a lawsuit against AI company Anthropic for distributing copyrighted lyrics through its AI model Claude 2. The complaint claims that Claude 2 can generate lyrics almost identical to popular songs without proper licensing, including songs by Katy Perry, Gloria Gaynor, and the Rolling Stones. The complaint also alleges that Anthropic used copyrighted lyrics to train its AI models. The music publishers argue that while sharing lyrics online is common, many platforms pay to license them, while Anthropic omits critical copyright information. Universal Music Group accuses Anthropic of copyright infringement and emphasizes the need to protect the rights of creators in the context of generative AI. 

Read the full report on Axios
Read the full report on ArsTechnica.
Read the case Universal Music Group et alia v. Anthropic PBC, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, No. 3:23-cv-01092 


Bad Bunny, J Balvin Face Copyright Lawsuit Over “Fish Market” Drum Pattern
Influential reggaeton artists Bad Bunny and J Balvin face copyright infringement claims for illegally copying or sampling an instrumental percussion track called “Fish Market,” created by Jamaican producers Steeely & Clevie in 1989. The lawsuit alleges that the distinctive drum pattern from “Fish Market” has been used by reggaeton artists without proper licensing and has become the foundation of the reggaeton genre. The artists’ defense argument is about the scope of the lawsuit. It is unclear about what works the plaintiffs own and whether a rhythm like “Fish Market” is entitled to protection under U.S. copyright law. The judge expressed concerns about the impact of copyright protection on creative activity in music, specifically the reggaeton genre.

Read the full report on Rolling Stone
Read the case Cleveland Browne/ Estate of Wycliffe Johnson et al v. Benito Martínez Ocasio (aka Bad Bunny) and José Álvaro Osorio Balvin (aka J Balvin) et alia, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:21-cv-02840-AB-AFM 


Costco Sued Over Sharing Consumer Data With Facebook Through Meta Pixel Tracking
A lawsuit filed against Costco alleges that the company shared users’ private communications and health information with Meta (Facebook’s parent company) without their consent. The lawsuit claims that Costco used Meta Pixel, which allows companies to track website visitor activity, in the healthcare section of its website. Users’ personal and health information was made accessible to Meta through this tracking pixel. The lawsuit alleges that using tracking services like Pixel violates privacy. It further alleges that Meta could monetize the information by selling ads to insurance companies looking to market to tracked customers. 

Read the full report in The Seattle Times
Read the case Castillo, Knowles, Rodriguez, Throlson v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, No. 2:23-cv-01548


Book Author Beats Copyright Infringement Platform; Setting Concerning Precedent
Self-published author Russel Greer successfully sued Kiwi Farms, a website known for cyberattacks, for copyright infringement of his book “Why I Sued Taylor Swift and How I Became Falsely Known as Frivolous, Litigious and Crazy”. Greer’s book was copied and distributed on Kiwi Farms without his permission. Greer sent a DMCA takedown notice, but Kiwi Farms didn’t comply and posted the notice. Greer sued Kiwi Farms for contributory copyright infringement. The lower court saw Greer’s claims to be unsubstantiated, but after appeal, the court found Kiwi Farms had direct copyright infringement, knowledge of it, and materially contributed to it. 

Read the full report on Ars Technica.
Read the full blog post by Eric Goldman
Read the appellate case Russell Greer v. Joshua Moon & Kiwi Farms, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 21-4128


Google Attempts To Dismiss Lawsuit Over Scraping User Data To Train Its BARD AI
Google is seeking the dismissal of a proposed class action lawsuit in California that alleges the company violated people’s privacy and property rights by scraping data for training AI systems. Google argues that using public data is essential for training generative AI systems and that the lawsuit would be detrimental to the development of AI. The lawsuit was filed by eight unnamed individuals who claim Google misused content from social media and its platforms for AI training. Google’s general counsel called the lawsuit “baseless” and stated that US law allows the use of public information for beneficial purposes. Google also contended that it followed fair use copyright law in using certain content for AI training.

Read the full report on Reuters
Read the case J.L. v. Alphabet Inc, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-03440.


Read the motion to dismiss J.L. v. Alphabet Inc, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-03440-AMO. 

More Headlines

  • AI: A.I. May Not Get a Chance to Kill Us if This Kills It First (by Slate
  • AI: Religious authors allege tech companies used their books to train AI without permission (by The Hill
  • AI: Rising AI Use Paired With Layoffs Invites Age Bias Litigation (by Bloomberg Law)
  • Antitrust: Amazon Offered to Settle California Antitrust Suit in 2022 (by Bloomberg)
  • CDA230: Big Tech’s Favorite Legal Shield Takes a Hit (by The Hollywood Reporter
  • Crypto: Cryptocurrency firms sued over ‘$1bn investor fraud’ by New York state (by Guardian)
  • Cybersecurity: Who’s Afraid of Products Liability? Cybersecurity and the Defect Model (by Lawfare)
  • Data Privacy: The new EU-US data agreement is facing familiar privacy challenges (by The Hill
  • Data Privacy: Meta shareholder lawsuit over user privacy revived by appeals court (by Reuters
  • Data Privacy: US senator asks 23andMe for details after reported data for sale online (by Reuters)
  • Net Neutrality: FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote (by Ars Technica)
  • Social Media: Elon Musk’s X fined $380K over “serious” child safety concerns, watchdog says (by Ars Technica
  • Social Media: TikTok’s Trials and Tribulations Mount (by Tech Policy Press)
  • Social Media: Is ‘Xexit’ nigh? Elon Musk denies talking about pulling X from the EU, but he may not have a choice (by Fortune

In Other News (or publications you should read)

This post originated from my publication Codifying Chaos.