alleged to be defamatory relate), if any assessment were to have been made (which it was not), would have been assessed as likely (i.e. more probably than not) to give rise to nasty and defamatory comments; (xiii) It is impossible for the defendants, or any of them, to edit or delete a comment by a third party user, prior to its placement on the public Facebook page, except by hiding it and un-hiding acceptable comments in accordance with (vi) and (vii) above; (xiv) The defendants could, if sufficient staff resources were allocated, monitor comments, whether published or hidden, and hide, delete or “un-hide” those comments; (xv) With the exception of the Centralian Advocate, no defendant applies sufficient staff to perform the task to which (xiv) above refers; (xvi) The Centralian Advocate employs sufficient staff for that purpose, but does not undertake the task described in (xiv) above, by utilising the process described in (vi) and (vii) above; (xvii) The existence and number of comments (including “likes” and “shares”) from third-party users is an important (and, more probably than not, the most important) aspect of the public Facebook page, as it affects the Facebook algorithm and increases the profile of the Facebook page and the consequential popularity of the Facebook page, thereby increasing readership in the digital newspaper/broadcast and augmenting advertising sales on both the Facebook page and the digital newspaper/broadcast. Legal Precedent 91 It is fair to say that the issues before the Court in this matter relate to an emerging area. Many defamation proceedings have been taken in relation to social media. Plaintiffs have sought damages against persons who have defamed them in emails and on websites. In most, if not all, of such proceedings, it is the owner of the website (or email address) who has been the publisher of the defamatory material: see, for example, Al Muderis v Duncan (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 726; Polias v Ryall [2014] NSWSC 1692 92 On a few occasions, plaintiffs have sought damages in defamation against a publisher of a search engine that produces, on a search, an article otherwise available on the Internet that is defamatory of the plaintiff: see, for example, Google Inc v Duffy (2017) 129 SASR 304; [2017] SASCFC 130.