It is clear from Shelley’s testimony and the evidence

It is clear from Shelley’s testimony and the evidence presented by Defendants that the court will soon rule that the editors of the public Facebook page, of which Defendants in this lawsuit are one, have the ability to post on the public page. Shelley and the evidence presented by the defendants on which the court will soon rule that the editors of the public Facebook page, of which the defendants in this lawsuit are one, have the ability to completely block all comments on the public Facebook page, hide all comments on the public Facebook page, make the comment read only by the friends who left the comment, allow a block followed by unblocking by an administrator, or send all comments separately from the Facebook page to an administrator and unblock When a third-party user posts a comment on a given public Facebook page, this is the first time the comment is posted in a form understandable to a large mass of readers, and from that posting, the comment is uploaded to the computer of the person who has access to the public Facebook page. Thus, when the author of a defamatory comment posts a comment on a public Facebook page, the posting occurs because the owner of the public Facebook page provides access to the comment by publishing the page and allowing other third-party users to access comments on the page. One of the other differences of a public Facebook page is that a comment created or written by a third-party user is not published until the owner of the public Facebook page allows it to be read, or in the words of the High Court in the Gutnick case, it is the owners of the public Facebook page who make the material understandable and allow it to be downloaded. If, on the other hand, Ms. Ryans’ assumption was incorrect and no one unblocked and shared the comment, then no additional personnel would be required, but no comment could be seen by the public outside of the delineated group of members of the public who are friends on Facebook of the person who posted the comment or blog on the public Facebook page. As Ms. Ryans’ comments show, it is important for Nationwide News to have comments on the site, in part because it encourages others to comment, and the more comments, the higher the rating of the public Facebook page, thus offering the page to more members of the public, who, in turn, offer the newspaper to more people. It is clear, or seems clear from the content of the reasoning of the decision in [86], that the Facebook page the New Zealand Court of Appeal was dealing with was a private [individual] Facebook page, not the public Facebook page published by the defendants in this proceeding. Moreover, friends of the third Facebook user who posted the comment could read it based on their friend status, not the status of the public Facebook page. These include the ability to block comments, the ability to hide comments, the existence of a Facebook list of banned words that removes any comment containing those words, and the ability to have a list of other words that would cause comments to be hidden, which was created by the Facebook page owner. In addition, any member of the public could share the post just as it would have been shared; it could be liked just as well, but no comments were visible except to the page administrator, the third-party commenter regarding the comment they made, and friendly Facebook commenters. Except for the reference to the use of emoji to display commenters’ reactions to the original article published by The Australian on the public Facebook page or to third-party comments on the original publication, the evidence of the operation of the public Facebook page, its purpose, and the difficulties associated with these suggestions by Shelley are identical to the Fan testimony. Part of the affidavit relied upon by the Court of Appeals, namely Murray’s testimony, refers to “his” Facebook page as an individual Facebook page over which the creator cannot exercise meaningful editorial control except for comments,