Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Back in the 80s, the federal government decided cigarette smoking was a public health epidemic and launched a media campaign to, amongst other things, silence the tobacco companies and lobbyists that were spreading what it considered misinformation about the threat nicotine posed to the public. The tobacco giants, and many, many Americans were up in arms about this. The science “wasn’t settled”. The government was “infringing on my rights……I don’t need the goddam gub’mint protecting me from myself”.  And yet here we are. I view the America of today as better for it. My tax dollars are freed up from paying for treatment of a terrible disease that was entirely preventable. Big tobacco’s first amendment rights were not violated. They were, however, severely restricted in their television and print advertising, which is how you interacted with the public back then. What’s happening now is no different. 

Ridiculous comparison. Tobacco restrictions are specifically related to advertising and advertising is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Companies can be held liable for knowingly selling an unsafe product.
 

Individual speech on social media is not advertising and does not fall under any government regulatory guidelines. The government in today’s case is involving itself in policing individual speech. That is an overstep and likely violation of the 1st amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Now it may be inefficient when the government doesn't mandate certain things. We are inherently inefficient compared to a country where the state makes swift decisions, for better or worse. But that is the cost of freedom. It makes us vulnerable to being outpaced by a country where the state has considerable power and makes good decisions quickly and decisively, but said country will be vulnerable to eventually ending up with a government that makes poor decisions. 

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. 

 

Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting.

 

The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming.

 

That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. 

 

Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting.

 

The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming.

 

That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.

This is called resting on your laurels. We had significant government propaganda and government persecution of socialists/communists/Nazis/black rights (MLK??) for the whole time period that actually made us a superpower (essentially the whole 20th century). Literally, free citizens were regularly jailed, fired, fined, or alienated for ideas. This was a government backed campaign.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Lets not pretend that government controlling the information narrative isn’t a real facet of our recent history and rise to power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. 

 

Jury is still out tho, 1776 was like yesterday in terms of history's sake. Powerful empires have come and gone, we cannot take this one for granted and assume that if we leave it on autopilot we'll stay on top just because of our love for freedom and moral compass. 

At my school in college, which lets just call an MIT for dummies, you know who the top performers were a lot of the time? The kids from China. We watch football and grill our burgers and play beer pong, they're trying to figure out how to build a jet that can maul an F-35. They want the podium, how close they are getting is above my pay grade, but I don't see them letting up any time soon. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Negatory said:

You guys are all smart people. Many of you even have security clearances and access to more detailed reports on weaponized misinformation and it’s effects on the U-S-of-A. You know that there are concerted attacks on the Information sector of America designed to cause turmoil, polarize folks, or get people elected who are in the best interests of our adversaries. From that standpoint, I’d hope you wouldn’t take such a black and white view on how to combat this adversarial disinformation, because it’s not helpful in making our nation strong or unified.

From a grand strategy DIME perspective, many will even argue that the I (information) is becoming the most impactful way to fight the US for many adversaries. This is because many in the US will, ironically, fight to freely allow and maintain misinformation under the guise of liberty. It’s a tough problem, because it really is a Liberty vs security discussion.

Maybe we should bring back the feel good official government propaganda machine that made people in the fifties to 2000 hate things like the concept of socialism so much?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agency

You think it’s a coincidence that the US disbanded its official information propaganda around the same time that those ideals started picking up more (1998)?

The pragmatic truth is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you embrace free information - regardless of veracity - you open up a giant attack vector. And for almost no benefit other than the dumbing of society. People just don’t have the time or effort to trudge through misinformation, so we’re left with it having a profound impact on us at a national scale. This includes those from every spectrum: those that blindly call things socialism, q-anon folks, people who think it’s racist to require a voter ID just cause they’ve heard it is, people who think that Trump won the election, folks that think there is significant evidence of surface transmission of COVID, people who think that COVID isn’t real, people who think it is extremely deadly, etc.

Disinformation is bad in our society and for our nations national security. If something is patently, provably false, why should that message not be stopped? The concern, of course, is who in government determines “the truth.” You can take two stances here: be a fatalist, accept misinformation, and say you could never trust the gov to do it. Or fight to make the government make bounded, reasonable, bipartisan stops against it.

Again, theory, not practice.

 

In practice, the Progressives are arguing for a reality that cannot be accepted by many, many people. The systemic racism argument. Trans women/men *are* women/men. Gender confused children should be given hormones against their parents wishes. Your business should be compelled to violate your mainstream religious beliefs. Reparations. Gun control (literally a constitutional issue). Hate speech should be illegal. Defund the police. 

 

And the common response to these issues from the left is something akin to "well you're just taking that cause too literally... It means something different." Defund the police. Systemic racism. Patriarchy. Rape culture. Either name your movements in a way that reflects their true purpose, or so whining when you get called out on being insane based on your own words. But really we all know it's just a defense. When a movement like Defund the Police becomes obviously and incredibly unpopular with the normal voters out there, the extremists/activists scramble to repackage and redefine the movement using double speak and jargon. Slightly modifying the great Groucho Marx... What're ya going to believe, me or your own ears? It's not "misinformation" to accurately describe a toxic movement to the American people. Or the origins of a novel virus. Remember how well the bipartisan experts did on the lab leak story?

 

Besides, don't you have some responses to reply to? You must have been a dodgeball superstar in your youth, the way you selectively respond here.

Edited by Lord Ratner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Besides, don't you have some responses to reply to? You must have been a dodgeball superstar in your youth, the way you selectively respond here.

I understand you don’t like the point I brought up because it’s hard to refute. If you read it, you’ll also note that it wasn’t “progressive,” it tied in everybody!

What specifically are you mad I haven’t responded to?

EDIT: Also, I don’t spend that much time on this forum. I check it about once a week, say my piece, and leave. I don’t have an emotional attachment to my arguments, and I won’t change that. If you want my actual thoughts on a specific issue (I doubt you do), message me and I’ll make sure to give em to you (sts).

Edited by Negatory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Ridiculous comparison. Tobacco restrictions are specifically related to advertising and advertising is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Companies can be held liable for knowingly selling an unsafe product.
 

Individual speech on social media is not advertising and does not fall under any government regulatory guidelines. The government in today’s case is involving itself in policing individual speech. That is an overstep and likely violation of the 1st amendment. 

Nor is anything on social media subject to, or protected by the first amendment. The government is engaging with private companies to get its own messaging out to the public. People will always have freedom to spew whatever bullshit they want from rooftops, street corners, and/or whatever media outlets are willing to host their content. Why should our government not be free to counter speech that is harmful to public health? Why shouldn’t our government encourage social media, as well as other outlets to spin its own agenda? Government officials have been appearing on Sunday morning talk shows for as long as I can remember doing exactly that. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prozac said:

Nor is anything on social media subject to, or protected by the first amendment. The government is engaging with private companies to get its own messaging out to the public. People will always have freedom to spew whatever bullshit they want from rooftops, street corners, and/or whatever media outlets are willing to host their content. Why should our government not be free to counter speech that is harmful to public health? Why shouldn’t our government encourage social media, as well as other outlets to spin its own agenda? Government officials have been appearing on Sunday morning talk shows for as long as I can remember doing exactly that. 

That's factually incorrect. What you put on social media is *absolutely* protected by the first amendment if the government is the one trying to block it. Which is literally what we're arguing over, government issuing the threat of legislation to compel censorship by social media companies.

 

Further, the government is free to put out a message. That's very different than suppressing someone else's message. That's such a basic concept I'm shocked I have to type it.

 

Again, how did the government do with the Coronavirus messaging? You really want these clowns going through the internet and highlighting "misinformation" for deletion? Can't wait to hear your support for such action from the next republican administration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I understand you don’t like the point I brought up because it’s hard to refute. If you read it, you’ll also note that it wasn’t “progressive,” it tied in everybody!

What specifically are you mad I haven’t responded to?

 

Hard to refute? You refuted it yourself. Examples of past censorship are exactly why we shouldn't be doing it now. You think propaganda and racist policy is why the US is a global superpower? Not personal and economic freedom? Let's do a little comparison... Which countries have racism and propaganda? All of them. So that's obviously not what made us different. But our system of limited government and unique conception of individual liberty are quite different.

 

As for your many dodges, we can start with your fixed-wealth formulation for billionaire economics. You might have to go back a few pages since Sua Sponte vomited all over the thread.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's factually incorrect. What you put on social media is *absolutely* protected by the first amendment if the government is the one trying to block it. Which is literally what we're arguing over, government issuing the threat of legislation to compel censorship by social media companies.

 

Further, the government is free to put out a message. That's very different than suppressing someone else's message. That's such a basic concept I'm shocked I have to type it.

 

Again, how did the government do with the Coronavirus messaging? You really want these clowns going through the internet and highlighting "misinformation" for deletion? Can't wait to hear your support for such action from the next republican administration. 

I’m sorry but I must’ve missed it. What action, exactly is the federal government threatening against social media platforms? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Disinformation is bad in our society and for our nations national security. If something is patently, provably false, why should that message not be stopped? The concern, of course, is who in government determines “the truth.” You can take two stances here: be a fatalist, accept misinformation, and say you could never trust the gov to do it. Or fight to make the government make bounded, reasonable, bipartisan stops against it.

The government is a reflection of the people tho, not the other way around. If the people in America are caring less and less about their government, getting dumber, not valuing education and science, and becoming so lazy as to get there news off some social media stream, than trying to stop it via government is a lost cause. The crazies can also band together now and find other crazies who will affirm whatever unfounded belief they have. The government is chosen by those same people, so you can't expect the government to be any more capable than they are.

This is a problem that needs to be solved at the local level. If you have a buddy who tells you the earth is flat, it cannot be let go. It needs to be shunned in the immediate vicinity. That person needs to be told by the 9 out of 10 people who know it isn't flat, why it isn't flat, and than be shunned until they figure it out. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Negatory said:

From that standpoint, I’d hope you wouldn’t take such a black and white view on how to combat this adversarial disinformation, because it’s not helpful in making our nation strong or unified.

The best counter to disinformation is truth. The suggestion you're making, that the government should control what people read, hear, or see, is control that isn't possible, and will only serve to undermine and erode further trust in it as an institution. Do you not see that?

57 minutes ago, Negatory said:

The pragmatic truth is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you embrace free information - regardless of veracity - you open up a giant attack vector. And for almost no benefit other than the dumbing of society. People just don’t have the time or effort to trudge through misinformation, so we’re left with it having a profound impact on us at a national scale.

That is an inherent part of the US system of liberal government. Every rose has it's thorn. The US is full of dumb people, but so is every other country.  And the proposition that because a certain group of people exists (i.e those who are unintelligent or uninformed), should somehow affect the information other people are "allowed" to consume is anti-American.

57 minutes ago, Negatory said:

If something is patently, provably false, why should that message not be stopped? The concern, of course, is who in government determines “the truth.” You can take two stances here: be a fatalist, accept misinformation, and say you could never trust the gov to do it. Or fight to make the government make bounded, reasonable, bipartisan stops against it.

Messages that are provably false stop themselves. Duh. You nailed everyone's main concern about determining what truth is, however, but your idea that there should be an attempt to stop the flow of information vs providing the truth is not a viable solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I’m sorry but I must’ve missed it. What action, exactly is the federal government threatening against social media platforms? 

It's in this very thread. Two examples of legislators threatening government control in the absence of desired actions, which in this case, the desired action is the suppression of speech.

 

The associated supreme court case that lays out the concept is also cited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Messages that are provably false stop themselves. Duh. You nailed everyone's main concern about determining what truth is, however, but your idea that there should be an attempt to stop the flow of information vs providing the truth is not a viable solution.

Agree with your stance except this. Hitler convinced the German people that the Jews were causing all their problems, and than convinced them to slaughter them. They do not always stop themselves and often times get out of control and can result in serious consequences. But it's the German people who bear the responsibility for succumbing to such a lie, they could have stopped it the second the roundups started happening. From my understanding from friends who have been there they are still ashamed of it to this day. And they will forever be remembered as the country that let it happen. Unrecoverable. Just like how slavery will always be a thorn in this countries back. People will be talking about it 1000 years from now when all of us are dead. 

The mere fact that people of differing opinions are willing to talk in this forum (somewhat) respectfully tho is a good sign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Nor is anything on social media subject to, or protected by the first amendment. The government is engaging with private companies to get its own messaging out to the public. People will always have freedom to spew whatever bullshit they want from rooftops, street corners, and/or whatever media outlets are willing to host their content. Why should our government not be free to counter speech that is harmful to public health? Why shouldn’t our government encourage social media, as well as other outlets to spin its own agenda? Government officials have been appearing on Sunday morning talk shows for as long as I can remember doing exactly that. 

The internet is the new public square. 
 

comparing Sunday talk shows to the internet is apples to oranges. Government is limiting the flow of free information they just happen to be doing it online instead of in the physical world. 
 

the better example is government taking people off the street corner who are holding signs or yelling information government doesn’t approve of. same difference just doing it online 
 

Edited by BashiChuni
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Agree with your stance except this. Hitler convinced the German people that the Jews were causing all their problems, and than convinced them to slaughter them. They do not always stop themselves and often times get out of control and can result in serious consequences. But it's the German people who bear the responsibility for succumbing to such a lie, they could have stopped it the second the roundups started happening. From my understanding from friends who have been there they are still ashamed of it to this day.

Let me ask you this: why do you think was Hitler able to convince the Germans that the Jews would be an effective scapegoat? Was he just that powerful an orator? Or were there perhaps some other conditions within Germany that enabled messaging like that to take hold? Would a Hitler have been able to exist without the economic policies instituted after WWI? Using Hitler as an example of why we need to limit free speech is a pretty one-dimensional reading of how the Nazis came to power.

4 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

And they will forever be remembered as the country that let it happen. Unrecoverable. Just like how slavery will always be a thorn in this countries back. People will be talking about it 1000 years from now when all of us are dead.

I think we collectively over-estimate how permanent recent history is vs. ancient history. Does anyone remember how prevalent European slaves were in Africa re: Barbary pirates? Maybe some do. I don't think that's how Northern Africa is really thought of today, however. A fair reading of American history would also be how we fought a war ending slavery whose casualties outstripped the combined totals of WWI and WWII. Not many other countries have gone to that length to end such an institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's in this very thread. Two examples of legislators threatening government control in the absence of desired actions, which in this case, the desired action is the suppression of speech.

 

The associated supreme court case that lays out the concept is also cited.

Ah. So, there are a couple of individual lawmakers openly considering whether there needs to be more government control over what propagates on social media. Yet you argued “the government is the one trying to block it”. Those are two different things. There is no US vs Twitter lawsuit citing misinformation that I am aware of. Nor is there any legislation circulating in congress that addresses the issue. So, despite what Sen Feinstein may have said, no, the federal government is not suppressing speech or threatening social media platforms. It is putting pressure on them to do more to combat misinformation, but there is no legal action or threat of penalty to compel them to do so. You say I made a statement that was factually incorrect but the truth is that it’s the other way around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ViperMan said:

Let me ask you this: why do you think was Hitler able to convince the Germans that the Jews would be an effective scapegoat? Was he just that powerful an orator? Or were there perhaps some other conditions within Germany that enabled messaging like that to take hold? Would a Hitler have been able to exist without the economic policies instituted after WWI? Using Hitler as an example of why we need to limit free speech is a pretty one-dimensional reading of how the Nazis came to power.

I think we collectively over-estimate how permanent recent history is vs. ancient history. Does anyone remember how prevalent European slaves were in Africa re: Barbary pirates? Maybe some do. I don't think that's how Northern Africa is really thought of today, however. A fair reading of American history would also be how we fought a war ending slavery whose casualties outstripped the combined totals of WWI and WWII. Not many other countries have gone to that length to end such an institution.

Reread my post, it isn't about using Hitler to limit free speech, quite the opposite. I said it's the German people who bear the responsibility for believing the lie, not that the lie itself was produced. I disagreed with your idea that false messages stop themselves. If they did we wouldn't have flat earthers. We have an ISS and pictures to prove it and such an idea that the planet is flat is abundantly ludicrous, yet it persists.

 

Viperman, if you go follow the next rainbow you see in the sky there will be a pot of gold at the end of it. It's your job to deduce that such a statement is idiotic, not the government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

The internet is the new public square. 
 

comparing Sunday talk shows to the internet is apples to oranges. Government is limiting the flow of free information they just happen to be doing it online instead of in the physical world. 
 

the better example is government taking people off the street corner who are holding signs or yelling information government doesn’t approve of. same difference just doing it online 
 

You are so wrong. Social media is basically private property. Twitch can ask you to leave at any time, for any reason. I’ll remind you that you agree to each content host’s policy every time you sign up to participate on one of these sites. If I own a restaurant and I feel you are disturbing my other customers I can absolutely kick you out and suppress tour speech in my business. I can’t stop you from grabbing a megaphone and shouting from the street corner. If you think Facebook is a public space because it’s “online” then you just failed civics 101 dude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Prozac said:

You are so wrong. Social media is basically private property. Twitch can ask you to leave at any time, for any reason. I’ll remind you that you agree to each content host’s policy every time you sign up to participate on one of these sites. If I own a restaurant and I feel you are disturbing my other customers I can absolutely kick you out and suppress tour speech in my business. I can’t stop you from grabbing a megaphone and shouting from the street corner. If you think Facebook is a public space because it’s “online” then you just failed civics 101 dude. 

You guys aren't on the same page. The INTERNET is the new public square, I can make a forum and propagate my ideas with out restriction=screaming from public square. That is an American right.

 

Facebook, Twitter, etc ARE private property. They have the right to decide who uses their forum and how, just like MSNBC has a right to decide who they want to have on a talk show/who they don't. 

 

Adding this: I don't think the government should be telling them what acceptable content is tho. That is overreach, that is at the discretion of the owners. Just like the moderators have the discretion to ban people on this forum. 

Edited by hockeydork
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Reread my post, it isn't about using Hitler to limit free speech, quite the opposite. I said it's the German people who bear the responsibility for believing the lie, not that the lie itself was produced. I disagreed with your idea that false messages stop themselves. If they did we wouldn't have flat earthers. We have an ISS and pictures to prove it and such an idea that the planet is flat is abundantly ludicrous, yet it persists.

Viperman, if you go follow the next rainbow you see in the sky there will be a pot of gold at the end of it. It's your job to deduce that such a statement is idiotic, not the government. 

I agree - it's my responsibility.

I understand your point. There will always be dumb people. Is your view, though, that if we limit false information everyone is going to have the same set of thoughts and internal representation of how the world is? This is a more complex issue than just saying we need to limit the propagation of bad information. Viewing it as that simple is seductive because it seems like a silver bullet that will just solve the problem in one fell-swoop. I'm saying that the German people didn't just simply "believe a lie" - it was far more complex than that.

If the government intervened and outlawed the view that the Earth is flat, would that action create more or less flat Earthers? Since obviously it's not flat. What about no gold at the end of a rainbow? More or less leprechauns?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Prozac said:

You are so wrong. Social media is basically private property. Twitch can ask you to leave at any time, for any reason. I’ll remind you that you agree to each content host’s policy every time you sign up to participate on one of these sites. If I own a restaurant and I feel you are disturbing my other customers I can absolutely kick you out and suppress tour speech in my business. I can’t stop you from grabbing a megaphone and shouting from the street corner. If you think Facebook is a public space because it’s “online” then you just failed civics 101 dude. 

With your construction of the issue, you're right - just because something is online does not make it a public space. No one is making such a simple argument, though. You're holding a strawman.

When the government compels a private company to act on their behalf, that changes things, and it's no longer an issue of it simply being online. When Facebook begins censoring messages on behalf of the government, they have now become a de facto arm of the government. *If* the messages being censored would *otherwise* be constitutionally protected, *that* is now unconstitutional. See the distinction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Facebook, Twitter, etc ARE private property. They have the right to decide who uses their forum and how, just like MSNBC has a right to decide who they want to have on a talk show/who they don't.

So long as Facebook and Twitter are acting independent of government imposition, you are correct. Once they begin acting on behalf of the government, however, that makes things different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I agree - it's my responsibility.

I understand your point. There will always be dumb people. Is your view, though, that if we limit false information everyone is going to have the same set of thoughts and internal representation of how the world is? This is a more complex issue than just saying we need to limit the propagation of bad information. Viewing it as that simple is seductive because it seems like a silver bullet that will just solve the problem in one fell-swoop. I'm saying that the German people didn't just simply "believe a lie" - it was far more complex than that.

If the government intervened and outlawed the view that the Earth is flat, would that action create more or less flat Earthers? Since obviously it's not flat. What about no gold at the end of a rainbow? More or less leprechauns?

My view is it is a systemic problem in American culture that won't be corrected by government intervention. Ban flat earthers = more flat earthers, same thing with the leprechauns. Do I want to even start with the moon landing idiots?

At the basic level, we only know "truth" as "truth" by verifying through the masses. Line 100 people up and ask them to pick out the color of the sky in a crayon box. 98 will grab the same color crayon, we call it blue. 2 color blind people will grab the brown crayon. To them the sky is brown.  The sky is "blue" only because the majority believe it is blue. The colorblind people have to acknowledge that, by logical deduction, they must be the anomaly. Even if you believed for a hot minute that the earth was flat, or that we didn't go to the moon, if 98 people tell you you are wrong and you continue thumping your drum, you're just being an arrogant asshole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...