[163] Finally, the chambers judge failed to consider the context of the publication §14.01[2][c]). The statements accusing Mr. Neufeld of hate speech were published by news organizations in articles available on the Internet (A.R., vol. I, at pp. 87 and 89). The anonymity offered by the Internet, combined with increased accessibility and information sharing, can result in greater harm to a person’s reputation (Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 269, at para. 37; Barrick Gold, at paras. 31-34; Pineau v. KMI Publishing and Events Ltd., 2022 BCCA 426, at para. 69 (CanLII)). [164] All of these aggravating factors relate to Mr. Hansman’s expression and increase the amount of general damages, which are presumed in defamation cases (Bent, at para. 144; C.A. reasons, at paras. 55 and 57). These factors were erroneously ignored by the chambers judge. The chambers judge also erred in discounting the part played by Mr. Hansman in Mr. Neufeld’s harm because others had expressed similar criticism towards Mr. Neufeld (para. 150). While I acknowledge that Mr. Hansman was not alone in criticizing Mr. Neufeld, the Court of Appeal was right in pointing out that a definitive determination of Mr. Hansman’s part in Mr. Neufeld’s harm is not required at this stage of the proceeding (Pointes, at paras. 71-72; C.A. reasons, at para. 59). To conclude otherwise would impose too onerous a burden on Mr. Neufeld at such an early stage. Furthermore, as our Court noted in Pointes, causation is not an “all-or-nothing proposition” (para. 72). 2023 SCC 14 (CanLII) and the platform on which the impugned statements were published (Downard, at