|
rkajdi posted:Free speech isn't being curtailed. You are using a business's site to host your videos, or another one to take in your payments. Both of these businesses can decide that they don't want to do business with people involved with harassment. It's no more a free speech violation than saying that some rando doesn't get to put an anti-immigrant sign up on my yard without permission. Youtube wont kick the alt-right content off without encountering a huge backlash at this point . The worst that will happen is they will demonetise Youtube videos made by people Youtube doesn't really want on their platform but cant get rid off without encountering resistance . Yes the whole Free Speech on Privately owned platforms is right, it is Youtubes or Twitters choice to choose what users they want on their platforms but I object to your cheerleading of it like censoring free speech at all is a good thing. What if Fox or some other right-leaning media outlet started banning left leaning users off their platforms would you agree with that? Yes the people in the alt-right conduct acts of bigotry but so do many others on the internet (die cis scum) towards people they dislike even through its a drop in the bucket really. Do you think anyone who conducts bigotry against anyone should be kicked off platforms? No I wont say that promoting violence against anyone is a good idea at all but if you want people kicked off platforms for these actions then the rule should apply to everyone but we know it wont and it will be a tool to shut down anyone who commits wrongthink. Either have the rules apply to everyone or leave them alone. Trying to commit acts of censorship against one particular group because they have opinions you dont like is going to have a Streisand effect in the long term. Do you really want PJW and Carlgon to be whining on other platforms that will accept them over how they were censor and making themselves out to be martyrs against the big bad companies. Yes Lauren Southern getting shitcanned was a good idea as she was openly promoting actual IRL violence not just shitposting about it note: I am a idiot high on pain pills for my stomach so forgive this rambling post
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Youtube wont kick the alt-right content off without encountering a huge backlash at this point . The worst that will happen is they will demonetise Youtube videos made by people Youtube doesn't really want on their platform but cant get rid off without encountering resistance . Yes the whole Free Speech on Privately owned platforms is right, it is Youtubes or Twitters choice to choose what users they want on their platforms but I object to your cheerleading of it like censoring free speech at all is a good thing. What if Fox or some other right-leaning media outlet started banning left leaning users off their platforms would you agree with that? Yes the people in the alt-right conduct acts of bigotry but so do many others on the internet (die cis scum) towards people they dislike even through its a drop in the bucket really. Do you think anyone who conducts bigotry against anyone should be kicked off platforms? How can you be a UKMT poster & not have learned that actually violence against the kulak is entirely acceptable? Deary me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
If the people you're censoring can whine about you doing it you obviously aren't censoring hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
How many people bother to unsubscribe when they stop watching a channel anyway? I do, but I'm a nerd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:How can you be a UKMT poster & not have learned that actually violence against the kulak is entirely acceptable? Deary me. Always up for a bit of the mass murder was our Stalin eh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:How many people bother to unsubscribe when they stop watching a channel anyway? I do, but I'm a nerd. Youtube incrementally starts filtering out channels you are subscribed to but never watch from your feed so not many I'd venture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Always up for a bit of the mass murder was our Stalin eh? The preferred term is "liquidation"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
I do think there's probably a legitimate discussion to be had about platforms that are so massive and ubiquitous in our daily lives like Facebook and Youtube simply being more than just mere corporations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I do think there's probably a legitimate discussion to be had about platforms that are so massive and ubiquitous in our daily lives like Facebook and Youtube simply being more than just mere corporations. You mean that you're not a fan of the blossoming social media monopolies? Don't worry, the EU agrees with you and if the US could stop letting Silicon Valley do whatever it wants for just 5 seconds then something might actually change about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
I'm sure President Zuckerberg will be bery sympathetic to your social media monopoly concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Fados posted:I'm sure President Zuckerberg will be bery sympathetic to your social media monopoly concerns. I did say if, which basically means 'never going to happen'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I do think there's probably a legitimate discussion to be had about platforms that are so massive and ubiquitous in our daily lives like Facebook and Youtube simply being more than just mere corporations. Yeah, they're super corporations now. Wait until they get to Super Corporations 3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Youtube wont kick the alt-right content off without encountering a huge backlash at this point . The worst that will happen is they will demonetise Youtube videos made by people Youtube doesn't really want on their platform but cant get rid off without encountering resistance . Yes the whole Free Speech on Privately owned platforms is right, it is Youtubes or Twitters choice to choose what users they want on their platforms but I object to your cheerleading of it like censoring free speech at all is a good thing. What if Fox or some other right-leaning media outlet started banning left leaning users off their platforms would you agree with that? Yes the people in the alt-right conduct acts of bigotry but so do many others on the internet (die cis scum) towards people they dislike even through its a drop in the bucket really. Do you think anyone who conducts bigotry against anyone should be kicked off platforms? I agree. The government must immediately turn all forms of social media into a public utility. Edit I absolutely and unironically want alt-righters to be regulated to tiny unheard of corners of the internet where their poo poo messages will never again accidentally reach the ears and eyes of innocent people. They can piss and moan and pretend to be martyrs all they want so that I have plenty of material to laugh at. What's supposed to be the downside to this? Edit2 What parallel universe are you from where Fox News doesn't already severely limit liberal and leftist voices, if they even allow them at all? Who What Now fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Jul 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Youtube wont kick the alt-right content off without encountering a huge backlash at this point . The worst that will happen is they will demonetise Youtube videos made by people Youtube doesn't really want on their platform but cant get rid off without encountering resistance . Yes the whole Free Speech on Privately owned platforms is right, it is Youtubes or Twitters choice to choose what users they want on their platforms but I object to your cheerleading of it like censoring free speech at all is a good thing. What if Fox or some other right-leaning media outlet started banning left leaning users off their platforms would you agree with that? Yes the people in the alt-right conduct acts of bigotry but so do many others on the internet (die cis scum) towards people they dislike even through its a drop in the bucket really. Do you think anyone who conducts bigotry against anyone should be kicked off platforms? Again, you're conflating internet "muh freeze peach" (i.e. anyone gets to say almost anything on the internet with anonymity and no reprisal) and the actual legal entity of free speech (the government is barred from limiting speech except in very limited circumstances; private individuals aren't and most speech stuff there is actually based on civil rights law) Google gets to ban or keep whatever videos it wants to for its own hosting. Hell, Net Neutrality doesn't apply, since this isn't connectivity, it's hosting. The problem is you're starting to see what the "wrong side of history" inevitably is. Important private institutions that we rely on take sides, and then you see the old broken position isolated culturally and watch it get strangled and die. That's human progress, not an affront to whatever brokebrained idea of libertarian freedom you have. As to how I'd feel if right-wing organizations would do that? They already have for years. Watch groups like the United Church of Christ get its superbowl ads pulled for being too contraversial (main tagline: Jesus didn't discriminate and neither do we) and we have right-wing local stations owned by Sinclair screwing with political ads from third parties. Those are recent ones. This is the way the world works with media, and why it's a big deal that basic things like LGBT acceptance have reached acceptance with mainstream organizations. quote:No I wont say that promoting violence against anyone is a good idea at all but if you want people kicked off platforms for these actions then the rule should apply to everyone but we know it wont and it will be a tool to shut down anyone who commits wrongthink. Either have the rules apply to everyone or leave them alone. Trying to commit acts of censorship against one particular group because they have opinions you dont like is going to have a Streisand effect in the long term. Do you really want PJW and Carlgon to be whining on other platforms that will accept them over how they were censor and making themselves out to be martyrs against the big bad companies. There are some big assumptions here. First, without Patreon, Paypal, or something similar mass payment systems, it's hard for these groups to accumulate real amounts of capital. Second, hosting videos like YouTube is massively expensive. Google doesn't make money at it even with ads, and any smaller platform is even going to be worse off. Also, it becomes way harder for poo poo to spread memetically without these centralized services. PJW and Carlgon screaming into the uncaring abyss is fine, because then they're just another crazy along with flat earthers and street preachers. Also, private organizations not hosting or publishing something is not censorship. Unless we want to get to the point where we say every publisher censors religious texts by not printing every denomination's version of them. Curation and editorial control are not censorship. If the Koch boys or some other rich shitheads are willing to spend money hosting this stuff, let them. I think you'll find how few their are and how expensive keeping this content up is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Here's an interesting article from the AV Club about South Park's role in creating the alt-right: http://www.avclub.com/article/south-park-raised-generation-trolls-258253
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:What if Fox or some other right-leaning media outlet started banning left leaning users off their platforms would you agree with that? They already do. Try posting some left-wing opinions on freep or /the_donald and see how long those comments stay up. What's the value in letting the alt right police their spaces but the rest of us (and I mean society in general, not just left-leaning sites) not policing ours? Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Either have the rules apply to everyone or leave them alone. Trying to commit acts of censorship against one particular group because they have opinions you dont like is going to have a Streisand effect in the long term. Do you really want PJW and Carlgon to be whining on other platforms that will accept them over how they were censor and making themselves out to be martyrs against the big bad companies. 1. I'm actually fine with some platforms banning anyone who promotes violence, even left-wing violence (incidentally, this happens on Youtube and Twitter all the time). It's a pretty small price to pay to push the whackjobs back to the edges of society again. 2. Yeah, I'm fine if PJW and Carlgon have to end up on Dailymotion or an even smaller platform of their own making. The fewer general eyeballs they reach, the better. In the old days, people like this would circulate racist zines and newsletters. They always had a way to make their views known, but they weren't generally able to blast them into the public like they do today. Same goes for CPUSA for example. Fringe racists and murder-enthusiasts should stay on the fringe. 3. There is a really fine line between shitposting and advocating mass murder and no one really knows where it is. "Gas the Jews" isn't a joke. It's a rallying cry that you can claim was edgy humor after the fact, but until someone calls you out on it, it may as well just be an announcement. When Kraut and Tea talks about "killing all the Muslims" he really means it... but it's really easy to backpedal that poo poo with "it was a joke bro".
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Again, you're conflating internet "muh freeze peach" (i.e. anyone gets to say almost anything on the internet with anonymity and no reprisal) and the actual legal entity of free speech (the government is barred from limiting speech except in very limited circumstances; private individuals aren't and most speech stuff there is actually based on civil rights law) Google gets to ban or keep whatever videos it wants to for its own hosting. Hell, Net Neutrality doesn't apply, since this isn't connectivity, it's hosting. The problem is you're starting to see what the "wrong side of history" inevitably is. Important private institutions that we rely on take sides, and then you see the old broken position isolated culturally and watch it get strangled and die. That's human progress, not an affront to whatever brokebrained idea of libertarian freedom you have. Thats all fine and dandy till they take a side that opposes you and starts censoring your free speech. Yes its brokebrained to want complete freedom of speech for all people including people with opinions I strongly disagree with, its better than having having major platforms become politically motivated and start censoring speech that they find problematic. Freedom of speech is a wondrous gift that is abused by morons and fools but just because there are people in the world who hateful things does that mean we should start to limit the freedom of speech on major platforms to accommodate those who want to censor them for their hate? Its a different thing saying something and actually doing something and I dont think the incel shut-ins that make up the great majority of the alt right will actually leave their basements, bedrooms and bedsits to actually inact change. Do I agree with people who say that homosexual people should be killed for their sexuality or the misogynists who say women are inferior beings , no I dont but just because I dont like what they say doesnt give us the right to censor them. Ignore and ridicule their bullshit go right ahead. Its a really bad idea in my mind for the left to start going into full censor mode because when the wind starts to blow the other way and it will I guarantee it the right will start using the same logic the left did to start censoring the left's opinions. We shouldn't start trying to revoke people's freedom of speech because some gently caress nugget is saying things I disagree with. Google is within its rights to start banning videos it doesn't want on its platform sure and they do that. But I'm not sure it wont create a series of alt-right youtubers enacting a martyr complex in the longrun making themselves out to be the underdogs fighting against the man. Honestly the best way if you wanted to vanquish the alt-right is to either defeat them in a debate or make sure people know that the facts that they lean on are complete poo poo. quote:As to how I'd feel if right-wing organizations would do that? They already have for years. Watch groups like the United Church of Christ get its superbowl ads pulled for being too contraversial (main tagline: Jesus didn't discriminate and neither do we) and we have right-wing local stations owned by Sinclair screwing with political ads from third parties. Those are recent ones. This is the way the world works with media, and why it's a big deal that basic things like LGBT acceptance have reached acceptance with mainstream organizations. Sinclair are small potatoes in the bigger picture of media outlets. The only real thing Sinclair has is Ring of Honor wrestling which has alot of prestige attached to it. I wonder how the former figurehead of ROH/leftie Daniel Bryan thinks of that? LGBT representation has reached the mainstream media because of a concentrated effort of LGBT people and their friends and allies to get to that point? LGBT representation is a good thing as it normalises being LGBT in the real world and the normies are comfortable with LGBT stuff in real life quote:There are some big assumptions here. First, without Patreon, Paypal, or something similar mass payment systems, it's hard for these groups to accumulate real amounts of capital. Second, hosting videos like YouTube is massively expensive. Google doesn't make money at it even with ads, and any smaller platform is even going to be worse off. Also, it becomes way harder for poo poo to spread memetically without these centralized services. PJW and Carlgon screaming into the uncaring abyss is fine, because then they're just another crazy along with flat earthers and street preachers. Also, private organizations not hosting or publishing something is not censorship. Unless we want to get to the point where we say every publisher censors religious texts by not printing every denomination's version of them. Curation and editorial control are not censorship. If the Koch boys or some other rich shitheads are willing to spend money hosting this stuff, let them. I think you'll find how few their are and how expensive keeping this content up is. How long before an alternative to Patreon would arise if you tried this? Do you think if you started trying this route to try and economically sanctioning/economic warfare the alt-right movement and they caught on and started doing the same to leftists? Do you think people like Hbomberguy or Contra Points would survive that barrage without blood being drawn? Driving the alt-right movement to become more underground than they are will only allow them to fester and become more hateful than they are now. Better to have them somewhere where you can see what they are up to? What if the winds start to really change and the Overton window takes a sharp turn to the hard right and they take the helm and start doing the same things that you propose that you want done to them? The alt-right right now are just a reactionary movement to nearly a decade of leftist control of politics and culture. Dont try and turn them into martyrs or crusaders, already on 4chan alone you can see the fracture lines between people who are taking Bannons side and people who are taking Trumps side, the civic nationalists and the white ethnonationalists, and the other nonstop bitching at each other. If the leftists want to defeat the alt-right expose them to the light and show them for the bunch of clown shoes they are instead of trying to turn a movement into a crusade. Also try and get a decent DNC presidential candidate instead of the reanimated Wicked Witch of the Wests corpse who is apparently powered by pure evil and hatred for 2020
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:They already do. Try posting some left-wing opinions on freep or /the_donald and see how long those comments stay up. What's the value in letting the alt right police their spaces but the rest of us (and I mean society in general, not just left-leaning sites) not policing ours? Try posting a right-wing opinion on the Gurdian BTL or Dailykos or Huff. Of course the opinions will be shitposted to oblivion. Thats what happens on partisan sites you know. quote:
1. I'd honestly agree with this opinion if it wasnt for the knowledge that pushing out of the light will give them matryrdom complexes and allow their lovely terrible opinions to fester and become worse 2. As long as the entire fringe got pushed to the fringe but I dont think they all would. 3. I've never watched Kraut and Tea but I have seen him on a Sargon stream and he came across as a tool
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Thats all fine and dandy till they take a side that opposes you and starts censoring your free speech. This already happens literally all the time. Again, what timeline are you from where conservative outlets give significant time to liberal and leftist views?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:The alt-right right now are just a reactionary movement to nearly a decade of leftist control of politics and culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
So does IFM, is your trans-dimensional mode of travel two-way, or are you stuck here for good? Why did you leave your original timeline where liberals controlled the world?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
I think it's a pretty good idea to let mega-corporations be the arbitrer of whats politically correct allowed speech on their increasingly monopolistic and ubiquitous platforms. These tech giants are even for LGBT rights now! Progress! This must surely mean they'll be a driver of progressive agenda forever I reckon. It's not like distopia level conglomerates would ever be conservative and co-opt small discreet causes for PR to cover their massive power grabbing I really don't see what can go wrong with this. Fados fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jul 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Fados posted:I think it's a pretty good idea to let mega-corporations be the arbitrer of whats politically correct allowed speech on their increasingly monopolistic and ubiquitous platforms. So go and stop them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:It's no more a free speech violation than saying that some rando doesn't get to put an anti-immigrant sign up on my yard without permission. I get the feeling that this guy *would* call this a violation of his right to freeze peach.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Fados posted:I think it's a pretty good idea to let mega-corporations be the arbitrer of whats politically correct allowed speech on their increasingly monopolistic and ubiquitous platforms. So the options are what exactly? We can either: - Allow white supremacists to continue multiplying like flies and using social media to amplify their lovely, society-ending message - Try to use whatever small amount of consumer "power" we have to ensure basic standards of speech in these public forums I mean, this is a tradeoff, but it depends strongly on what you believe is the bigger threat: white supremacism or corporate control. Neither is great, but white supremacists present a more existential threat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:So the options are what exactly? Yes, those are the only options.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Yes, those are the only options. If you have others, feel free to let us know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you have others, feel free to let us know. I mean, maybe telecommunications are a vital international infrastructure, integral to the functioning of democratic governments the world over, and thus merit regulation on that scale?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, maybe telecommunications are a vital international infrastructure, integral to the functioning of democratic governments the world over, and thus merit regulation on that scale? By who? Do you really want Trump writing regulation for the internet? Or Russia, or China?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:So the options are what exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:By who? Do you really want Trump writing regulation for the internet? Or Russia, or China? As opposed to currently, where trump, russia, and china simply buy the internet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As opposed to currently, where trump, russia, and china simply buy the internet? Yes, them having slightly less power over the internet is better than them having more of it. That's just basic stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, them having slightly less power over the internet is better than them having more of it. That's just basic stuff. You can vote trump out, what do you propose to do about that power becoming increasingly available to everybody with money as a result of expanding monopolies with zero oversight other than the laughable concept of the market not brooking unethical business practices?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Wait until there is a reasonable and responsible power to hand the reins over to and then hand them over, as opposed to handing it over right now to a bunch of people that will make things actively worse very, very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Crain posted:Ultimately I get that the whole "incel" identity is more about hating women than it is about not having sex, but even then the focus on how sex is so loving important in their lives just weirds me out. Sure it's great fun, but I've seen them go so far as to state that it's a "fundamental human need" like food or water or shelter. This might've been responded to already but the what self-described incels really want is actual physical affection from the opposite sex, but not necessarily sex itself, but they are so broken that they focus on sex since sex would validate their masculinity so that they could move on with their life. They assume a lack of sex is like a wall holding them back from being elevated, when really the inverse is true - they need to elevate themselves in order for anyone to want to have sex with them. In any case, actual physical affection is a fairly powerful psychological need, but our society is so filled with toxic masculinity that only sex with their crush of the moment with suffice - a hug from a friend or relative won't cut it or even physical affection from anyone actually in their "league", insofar as a thing exists, won't cut it either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
You're going to be waiting a very long time for all major international powers to be represented by people you like. Particularly if you have no suggestions about what to do about the ease of controlling information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:So the options are what exactly? I think that's a false dillema either way because at a certain point these tech giants will have crystalized so much as social institutions that they as whole will be out of reach to any sort of "consumer power", just think of the global farmaceutical or energy lobbies. So that even if any one of them has to fall there a tacit agreement between the remainder of them on a common ground of shared power, a cartel if you will. So no ammount of consumer choice will matter, they'll only give you more and more a strictly packaged idea of progress that they think its necessary for PR, and all other implicit positions won't have the smallest chance of putting them, as an institution, in danger and as a consequence of the regime that supports them. Maybe I'm too catastrophic, but I see tech giants sector as amassing incredible ammounts of power over data, and much more deserving of fear, than the current iteration of internet white supremacy, this new encarnation is an epiphenomenon, other things staying the same, it will not grow that much, it will morph or peter out. But if you rely on the tech lobby for your regulation of public space discourse I'm 100% sure we will see things much much worse (in terms of power and relevance) in a near future. Fados fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jul 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You're going to be waiting a very long time for all major international powers to be represented by people you like. Waiting is a better alternative to actively ruining things right now. You just said we can vote Trump out of office, but now that's not an option? What, do we somehow need to give him power to regulate content on the internet to fulfil an ancient prophecy to defeat him or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Fados posted:I think that's a false dillema either way because at a certain point these tech giants will have crystalized so much as social institutions that as whole will be out of reach to any sort of "consumer power", just think of the global farmaceutical or energy lobbies. So that even if any one of them has to fall there a tacit agreement between the remainder on a common ground of shared power, a cartel if you will. Except right now, everything seems to mostly be working out okay? The obvious bigots and shitheads get banned, the one who learn how to dog whistle politely enough are allowed to remain. The system is working, and all you have to say that it won't is hypothetical slippery slope bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Waiting is a better alternative to actively ruining things right now. You just said we can vote Trump out of office, but now that's not an option? What, do we somehow need to give him power to regulate content on the internet to fulfil an ancient prophecy to defeat him or something? My point, is that if your complaint against international regulation of powerful capital is that it might end up with some nations trying to game it to support lovely practices then you're going to end up waiting until capital has control of the planet before you think to move against it. You have just had an election where lack of control of communications swung it, and this has been getting more prominent year on year for a long time, what makes you look at that and think "hmm yes let's wait and see until we try to do something about this"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 16:05
|
|