A semester of lessons learned: reflections of a JOMC 711 student

I feel like the course just started. However, when I look back, I can identify various techniques, skills, lessons, and experiences I have learned throughout the semester. All of these can be summarized in one key comprehensive lesson that I will take with me: when writing for online publication, always remember that your reader will quickly get tired from reading on a screen and that he probably won’t want to spend a lot of time doing so anyway.

With that in mind, I have learned to apply the specific skills and techniques that we have discussed in class to make sure that my messages are delivered and, most importantly, that they are actually read. Specific formatting techniques which I now understand, short of being informal, are very effective include:

• Bullets
• Links
• Headings that say what the article is about and helps the reader find it
• Subheadings
• Bold Text

Taking the class I have also improved the way I write. I now try to use shorter and more direct sentences. I avoid using passive voice and I use simple, yet effective vocabulary.

In terms of website design, I have a better idea of what constitutes an easy to navigate website and what doesn’t. In preparation for when I have the opportunity to design one, I have started to analyze the design of the websites I frequent, including their:

• Format
• Ease of Navigation
• Use of Color (I learned this from BC’s comment about the pink background on my blog!!)
• Font
• Organization

Finally, one of the things I enjoyed the most about the class, was the “push” it gave me to experience using online tools which I had been wanting to explore, but had been afraid to do so. I particularly enjoyed the opportunities to:

• Live Blog
• Live Tweet (I had done this before, but this was the first time I did it so intensely and prolonged)
• Edit a Wikipedia article
• Work on a Wiki document and see the class got organized

I have already live tweeted and event after the assignment and plan to continue doing it, especially when I feel it will be useful for other. I also look forward to using the Wiki document in CREO’s beginning of year planning.

My own blog is certainly something I want to continue. My plan, which I tried to start a while ago but never put too much effort into, is to maintain a blog were I comment on the daily news. While I don’t expect to write on it every day, I do hope to be consistent. I also want to work on ways to attract more readers to my blog.

I’m aware that I still need to work on feeling less afraid of “going public”, after all, that is what the internet is about: sharing your ideas with the world. I have no doubt that I will find myself applying what I have learned this semester in my job, in my extracurricular activities, and in my social and for-fun interactions. 

Thanks BC... great class!

Amazon.com's Privacy Notice Review

As good an Amazon.com costumer as I am, I must confess that I had never read their privacy notice until today. In general, I have always been satisfied with Amazon, including their customer service, the variety of products it offers, and its ease of use. Therefore, I was not surprised to find that the privacy notice is clear and has been written with considerable respect towards the user. Nevertheless, it contains three statements which I would rather not see included in the site's policy and which are related to the user’s acceptance of the notice, third-party advertisers, and their suggestion because they can change their policy and thus the reader should visit it frequently.

1. By visiting, you accept. In its introductory paragraph, the Privacy Notice states that:
     “By visiting Amazon.com, [the reader is] accepting the practices described in this 
      privacy notice.”
While I understand that they need to protect themselves from any privacy infringement lawsuits, I don’t think it is fair that “visiting” Amazon.com is enough to confirm acceptance. I wouldn’t be bothered if the sentence read that by “using” or by “becoming a member” of Amazon, the reader accepts the notice. I believe that once the reader becomes an active participant and user of the Web site’s features and especially when he consciously provides his personal information, he can be held accountable of the sites policies. However, if a person is just browsing around, or if he accidently lands on a particular Amazon page, the Web site should not have the right to use his information (including history of products he has looked at or any other surfing history information).

Since Amazon claims that everyone visiting their Web site is implicitly accepting their privacy notice, I think it would be more transparent if they made it clear from the moment a person first reaches their site. For instance, which ever page within the site you first landed on, a message could pop up saying that anyone visiting the Web site is subject to its privacy notice (with a hyperlink to the notice, of course). This way, nobody can claim that they weren’t warned about Amazon’s policies nor can they claim that their privacy was violated. This could become annoying for repeating users, so Amazon would need to make use of its cookie technology to only present the message to non-active or first time users.

2. Third-party Web sites and advertisers, or Internet advertising companies.
Amazon’s privacy notice states that they do not provide any
    “personally identifiable costumer information to advertisers nor third-party web sites”
which is a commendable practice. However, they then state that the third- parties that advertise through their website could be using technology to gather information about the Amazon user. In other words, while Amazon is not providing third parties with their database of user information, it is giving them direct access so that they can gather it themselves.

Amazon, not only allows for this to happen, but also claims that it is not responsible for third-party practices and that those third-parties are not covered by the Amazon privacy notice. While it seems reasonable that they want to guard themselves of potential lawsuits, a user who wants to continue using the site, is left with very little options to protect themselves from the advertisers.

3. By the way, we could change this Notice and it’s up to you to find out if we do.
Towards the end of their policy, Amazon warns about the likelihood that because their business changes constantly, their privacy notice could change as well. I consider this a valid statement (especially in such a dynamic business environment we are living in today). However, I don’t think it is neither fair nor responsible on Amazon’s part to tell the reader that they should
     “check [their] Web site frequently to see recent changes”.
They go on to say that they “may” send out notices by email, but still consider the reader to be responsible for making sure they become aware of any changes the site makes.

I think that a better way Amazon could approach this situation is that when a change is made to the privacy notice, every costumer (new or returning) that visits the site for the first time since the change, should get a message notifying them about the change and encouraging them to read the privacy policy.


I believe Amazon’s privacy policy has room for improvement in terms of when their policy becomes effective, in terms of what they allow third-party Web sites and advertisers to do when they become part of the Amazon Web site, and in terms of potential alterations to the notice. Nevertheless, overall the site’s privacy policy is quite comprehensive, clear, and respectful, considering the level of sophistication of their site, the amount of features, and the complexity of their business.

Legal Opinion – Orellana & Associates

Prepared for: MyFacebookSpaceNews.com

Position: Defendant

Accusation: Libel per se ($5 million in damages)

Plaintiff: Will Simmons

Summary: MyFacebookSpaceNews.com [client] is accused by the plaintiff of libel per se (read the free dictionary's definition) after the news site published the report of an accident in which he was involved. The plaintiff claims that the report falsely claimed that he was driving drunk and that he was stupid.

The report included the following two sentences which are subject of the libel:

                “Ruggiero said that the third motorist was arrested on suspicion of

                drunken driving and faces “more very serious charges.””

                (Ruggiero is a New York Police Sgt.)

                 ““It’s a tragedy,” Hubier said. “All I can say is that it’s a damn tragedy. Whoever 

                   was driving the  van was too much in a rush. I think people like that guy are 
                   just too stupid to know when it’s unsafe to drive.””

                   (Hubier was a passerby)

Legal Opinion:

In libel accusations the plaintiff is responsible for proving that damage was done. In order to do so, he has to prove the six elements listed below. The defendant should seek ways to invalidate each of his claims.

We have reviewed the case and are of the opinion that:

1. Publication:

• The news report was clearly published on an online source.
• Even though the report quoted third parties, the republication rule states that the reporter is responsible for the published libel.
• Therefore, we cannot advice our client to use this element in his defense.

2. Identification:

• The plaintiff´s name has been published, along with other identifying information.
• Therefore, we cannot advice our client to use this element in his defense.

3. Fault:

• The court will name the plaintiff a "private citizen."
• Private citizens are only required to prove negligence (read the Free Dictionary's definition) as a standard of fault.
• Simmons has enough elements to prove negligence:
• Enough sources were not used to verify that he was driving drunk, nor that he is stupid:
• Drunk-driving claim source– a police officer who explained he was arrested under suspicion of drunk driving.
• Stupid claim source – a passerby who saw the accident
• Sources were not credible:
• Drunk- driving claim– the police officer said that Simmons was arrested under “suspicion of drunken driving”, however, the news site did not verify that he was in fact charged.
• Stupid claim- the passerby did not know or meet Simmons. The news site should have not used her as a source.
• Simmons will most likely be able to clear the requisite of proving fault. Therefore, we advice our client to different element to present their defense.

4. Injury:

• The plaintiff is required to verify that he was in fact injured in some way by the publication.
• He could claim two types of damages:
• Compensatory Damages (read the Free Dictionary's definition) – he will need to demonstrate that his reputation was damaged and/or that he suffered as a result of the news report.
• Special Damages (read the Free Dictionary's definition)- in the case that he lost his position as president of SADD, he could claim special damages (his current standing in the organization has yet to be verified).
• Therefore, we advice our client to wait to see what injuries the plaintiff presents.
• An opinion will be presented to our client, once this is known.

5. Falsity:

• The plaintiff is responsible for proving that the statements are false, rather than the defendant proving that it isn’t.
• To prove falsity, the plaintiff will need to:
• Prove that he was not drunk when the accident occurred (with police reports, alcohol tests, etc), and
• Prove that he is not stupid (IQ test, etc).
• Therefore, we advice our client to wait to see how the plaintiff proves falsity and what the results are.
• An opinion will be presented to our client, once the plaintiff has presented his evidence.

6. Defamation

• The plaintiff is suing for libel per se (as opposed to libel by interpretation)
• We have revised the news report and concluded that it does not directly claim that Simmons was drunk, nor that he is stupid:
• The police officer said that Simmons was arrested under suspicion of drunk driving, but never said that he was in fact drunk.
• The quoted passerby said that “people like that guy are just too stupid”, she never said that Simmons was stupid but rather that people who are similar are stupid.

Conclusion: It is our opinion that the plaintiff lacks sufficient argument to prove our client guilty of defamation. Of the six elements that he needs to prove in order to win the case, three will be simple, one of his counsel’s ability to argue, one will depend on scientific results, and the last one will be almost impossible to prove.