{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018815716657443277, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002767017155506364, 'mean_word_length': 5.622710622710622, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Death online in contemporary Russia: memory, forgetting and the connective presence of mourning on the internet

From the outset, Harbinja’s chapter 6 demonstrates the policymakers’ and scholars’ confusion on how to conceptualise digital remains. While arguing soundly against proprietary understanding of digital assets that fail to conform with conventional property theories and doctrines, Harbinja also provides an alternative personality right-based doctrine. Upon this background, Birnhack and Morse remarks in chapter 7 that the confusion surrounding digital afterlife is not exclusive to policy makers but is also shared by data subjects themselves. Based on the national survey they conducted, the authors reveal crucial implications and tendencies of online users, at times, contrary to long held beliefs in respect to digital remains that should guide any policymaker, who do intend to vindicate the ante-mortem persons’ autonomy. Lastly, Rycroft’s chapter 8 concurs the scepticism raised in previous discussions by explaining that that technology companies did not have a usercentric prioritisation in mind while drafting complicated Terms and Conditions of use, which for a long time set the legal rules as per digital remains. Even though his analysis is focused mainly on the United Kingdom, Rycroft’s investigation exposes the conflicts of interests parallel in multiple jurisdictions, hence constitutes a valuable inquiry also for a comparative legal study. In the conclusory chapter 12, editors Savin-Baden and Mason-Robbie contribute once again, this time with closing statements to this edited volume, which is an excellent example of an interdisciplinary analysis with prominent scholars, not confined to their principal fields of expertise but in dialogue with the neighbouring fields.