After Trump, Congress, Supreme Court Justice hit out at tech giants' legal immunity, now FCC boss wants to stick his oar in, too On Thursday, FCC chairman Ajit Pai declared his intention to clarify a law he may not have the authority to interpret. Citing concerns about Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which more or less protects online service providers from liability for content created by their users, the boss of America's comms …
Who cares what the Idjit "Tweety" Pai has to say at this stage of the game? He's going to be one of the first replacements come January, and pretty much everything he's fucked up will be reversed before the end of February.
Sadly, when the sniveling, brown-nosing little shit is inevitably removed from office, he'll likely be given several high paying Board seats in the industry, as a thank you from his lords & masters for services rendered. There ought to be a law ...
Note that people are always OK with brown-nosed little shits as long as they are THEIR brown-nosed little shits. Obama is a dictator who won't leave office...whilst Trump actually tries to ACT like one *plus* refuses to promise to leave office if voted out, as per law.
But as long as he's MY dictator, we're all fine.
"I'd love to see the citation of this little gem"
Are you actually SERIOUS??!!
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=obama+dictator+&t=ffsb&ia=web
https://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/the-new-prediction-obama-wont-leave-msna266076
Listen, just because you are in the UK and out of the U.S.'s poison media loop doesn't make it false; and you were upvoted, too. Some of the boards, like the biker owner boards, that I was frequenting during that time were mostly stocked with Southern conservatives and just about every day they ranted that Obama would declare himself absolute dictator and not leave office after the election. You were completely out of the loop my friend - at the end of 2016, it was rampant here, so much so that Snopes had to do an entry
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-confirms-he-will-refuse-to-leave-office/
"Please, don't post Snopes links."
Translation: "Snopes are evil meany poo-poo heads who poke massive holes in all my pet conspiracy theories, making it look like I am actually stupider than I really am. If you don't stop enabling this, I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue and puke all over everything."
Thanks for that unfounded personal attack. There are many examples online of Snopes demonstrating bias - e.g. by fact checking their representation of a statement rather than the statement itself, finding their representation false and using that to claim that the statement is false.
It's seedy behaviour and it doesn't matter where their bias lies, they're clearly not a credible fact checking service.
Funny,
But the reporting on this is that its Obama pulling the strings in the DNC. Its been reported that Obama preferred Kamala Harris, which is why she got the VP slot.
Want to beat the Orangeman... pick better Dems.
Biden has lost more than a step.
(Nancy's 25th Amendment talk was to get Biden out of office ASAP assuming they win.)
Kamala couldn't get the role on her own... remember she left the fray early in the primary.
Beyond the wild flip/flopping ... neither have articulated a consistent set of policies. (e.g. fracking)
Half of Trump's successes are due from removing Obama's EOs.
Sorry, but if we fact check the statement ... "Trump did more in 47 months than what Biden accomplished in 47 years..." its true. Hate or Love the Orangeman, the facts are in his favor.
Got to correct this...
Obama was willing to leave office, however he wanted to anoint his successor who would follow his progressive and ill thought out policies.
That said, he used his position and power to spy on GOP political rivals.
There's a lot of research and documentation done on this... from the IRS to the misuse of NSA resources which was stopped by Admiral Rodgers.
So Obama would leave, however he would do so if he could be the puppet master.
The smart money is on Trump, but if Biden wins... watch him out within 3 months under the 25th Amendment.
I guess its nothing new for El Reg commentards to vote down ideas or statements that they dislike, yet are factually true.
Biden's camp just made a statement that is factually incorrect. Of course with 98% of the mainstream media along w FB and Twitter in their pocket, it will go unnoticed.
Biden is trying to claim superiority in how he would have handled the COVID-19 pandemic. The reality is far different than his armchair QBing and reality.
While Trump was cutting off traffic from China, Biden, Pelosi and others were mocking him.
Don't take my word for it... use Google and look for the video evidence. (e.g. Pelsoi mocking Trump while walking thru SFO's China Town to celebrate Chinese New Year. )
Twitter just cut out a WH medical advisor's comments about masks.
The reality is that someone who is unknown, along w ML/AI code is identifying tweets and censoring them based on their personal beliefs.
This editorial over content is why the protections of section 230 need to be removed.
Twitter and Facebook just blocked a NY Post story which revealed allegations that Joe Biden knew about Hunter Biden's business and how he made money off his father's role as VP.
Literally the smoking gun which also detailed that Joe Biden was also involved.
While I am not going to detail the story, or its veracity...
It was blocked on Twitter and FB. However the focus is on Twitter because they claimed the material was sourced from a hacked computer therefore they were right to block it.
And this is where the wheels fall off the cart.
1) Twitter had no problem w tweets concerning Trump's tax returns. The NY Time article was based on stolen tax documents given to them. No censorship there.
2) There was no hacked material. The repair shop legally took ownership of the laptop after 90 days when Hunter Biden failed to pick it up. So the repair shop owner had the legal right to the material found on the laptop.
So illegally obtained material allowed. Legally obtained material censored.
Twitter's excuse for censoring the material doesn't pass the sniff test.
So lets apply Occam's Razor.
Twitter blocked the material to protect Biden.
1) We can see that the majority of Twitter employees donated to Biden's campaing. (Verifiable)
2) Twitter has several key employees tied to the Biden campaign and democratic party positions.
So the accusation that the story was blocked to protect Biden seems to hold water.
What makes this incredibly dangerous is that Twitter just broke FECA law.
(I seriously doubt the complaint will go anywhere.)
Because Twitter is curating the material, they should lose 230 protections. They are no longer a neutral platform.
The irony... besides the 230 protections.... they would also be protected due to SCOTUS decision in NY Times v. United States. (Ellsberg)
Regardless of your politics... this act is so egregious, action has to happen.
Rule Twitter a monopoly. (This has legal significance) Same for FB and Google.
And consider breaking them up.
Twitter and Facebook just blocked a NY Post story which revealed allegations that Joe Biden knew about Hunter Biden's business and how he made money off his father's role as VP.
Literally the smoking gun which also detailed that Joe Biden was also involved.
While I am not going to detail the story, or its veracity...
OMG!!!!! How are the NY Post [Times? which?] going to get that story out now? Surely there must be some sort of alternate news channel a newspaper could use instead being blocked by those dastardly multinational social media platforms!!!!
Toss the Pai out the window, people. There is some serious discussion that needs to happen about and around these platforms and their 'legal lack of liability'. I think that they need to be held just as accountable as (say) newspapers with their 'letters to the editor' sections. It might once have been an inducement to get platforms started, to try to make the internet useful... But I think that the time is long past for some regulation with real teeth. I mean, fining a big tech what amounts to a rounding error on its monthly accounts is not what I would call 'teeth'. Teeth are made for biting. I would say a quarter's worth of their yearly bottom line BEFORE EBIDTA . THAT's a BITE!
Section 230 is not the problem, it is the first amendment. Recent events have shown that major internet platforms should not have the right to decide what to show, delete or annotate what appears on their own web sites. What if they presented evidence that contradicted the president or statements from the current ruling party? What if they deleted government selected fake news? It is the duty of these platforms to say only and precisely what the President and his appointed officials consider acceptable and if they won't follow the party line to the letter there needs to be a law that promptly brings these corrupt organisations to heel.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the US government from making laws which abridge the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press. This clearly prevents Trump from cracking down hard on these lying media traitors. Vote to abolish the first amendment and Trump will truly own the Libs. Conservatives will no longer have to put up with those snowflakes and their facts and evidence on the internet. Come on everyone, recite the pledge with me:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Trump, indivisible, with liberty and justice only for rich white Republicans.
What if they presented evidence that contradicted the president or statements from the current ruling party? What if they deleted government selected fake news?
This is potentially the problem, ie the Biden thing-
Twitter said it removed links to the story because it violated its rules on distributing private information and hacked materials. Facebook said it was reducing the visibility of the story in accordance with its efforts to reduce misinformation.
How would Twitter know material was hacked, and how would Facebook know it's misinformation? The NY Post story was as a result of some laptops left at a repair shop, that may or may not have belonged to a Biden. The Post's lawyers presumably did some 'fact checking', and ran the story, which alleges some illegal activity as well as some salacious stuff. Which has similarities to the infamous Steele dossier alleging much the same. Trump engaging in watersports, Hunter in a sex tape with a crack pipe.. But the allegations made in the Steele dossier were touted to the MSM and new media, who ran with it.. And apparently the FBI now has the Biden laptops, so might be investigating (or losing/erasing them). And if they don't, then apparently Rudy Giuliani has a copy, and a website to leak the content..
But such is politics, especially the highly polarised and vicious politics the American left/right seem to have embraced.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the US government from making laws which abridge the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press.
But there's also the CDA, or s.230 of the US Communications Act. Which would seemingly put it in the FCC's remit. And the CDA already abridges the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. It was after all intended to limit pornography, and child pornography. It's also not absolute protection, ie if you host child pornography, s.230 won't protect you. If you're a website, it may not protect you, eg Roommates.com which got in trouble for using a questionnaire regarding preferences for roommates. Democrats/Republicans welcome or need not apply. That website was eventually ruled as an 'information content provider', and not protected under s.230. Stuff that is a federal crime is not protected.
So to an outside observer, it's all a bit of a mess. The 'free press' already has some restrictions, and ever since the first UUCP packets were sent, there has been pressure to apply the same restrictions & regulations to the Internet, albeit with some carve-outs like s.230 or 'safe harbor' provisions in the DMCA. And information content providers want to keep those carve-outs, because otherwise they face massive costs and liabilities in having to police content.. But if they are already policing, ie any real or perceived left/right bias, then they face losing those protections already.
But it's also a huge challenge for legislators, ie definging un-Free Speech, and then regulating/enforcing violations. Regulators like the FCC may not be entirely opposed to this because it increases their power, or they're trying to figure out how to do it. So in future, people may no longer be allowed to piss about on the Internet, because that contains one of the FCC's forbidden broadcast words. And DPI could scan for those 7 deadly words, and automagically remove them. Or issue fines. But then there's 'Net Neutrality', which sort of forbids DPI. Or regulators could start with the 7, then decide to add other naughty words, like Trump, Biden and make the Internet a perfect 'safe space'.
"How would they have done that given the time"
Because a cursory glance at the facts (and lack thereof) takes practically no time at all, and shows it to be a non-story invented out of the whole-cloth by somebody with an agenda. Can I help you with any more easy to answer questions?
I've been following this one across the political spectrum of news media (progressive through the right) and this has legs, despite your assertion that it is fabricated. Unfortunately, the FBI won't divulge anything about an ongoing criminal investigation, so there we are, for now. The only thing that the Biden campaign has said is that the meeting with the CEO of Burisma was not officially recorded, "but an unofficial meeting might have taken place." That's a quote.
Got any other easy questions?
Actually no.
The NY Post did their own fact checking and ran the story.
Biden's campaign which denied the story, didn't deny the facts, but that because Twitter says it was fake, therefore it must be fake.
(This is verifiable)
The conservative media is running with this.
The liberal media (most of the media) is silent. (which is deafening)
Jonathan Turley a liberal law professor has been interviewed and has made some interesting comments regarding this. Regardless of the veractiy of the story... the actions taken by Twitter and FB were wrong.
You mocked the 1st Amendment in an earlier post (see above w a Joke icon) yet that's precisely his argument about running the story.
What makes this worse... what Twitter did could be an FECA violation.
Also ... if the allegations are true.. (which it seems to be going that way...) Biden(s) have a serious problem. Its actually a national security problem...
Also the irony... during Trump's impeachment... the Dems attacked Trump over his Ukrainian statements. He called out the quid pro quo that Joe Biden admitted to on CSPAN in Jan of '18. (You can find the acual video on YouTube) These documents (emails) are the 'smoking gun' that link his actions to Hunter's role in Burisma along with his deals in China.
Joe Biden was never the sharpest tool in the shed. And he's even lost a few steps due to old age.
This is not good for the DNC and the fact that they are trying to hide this during the ending days of the election... they are attempting to coast in.
Since people have already voted... the independents are the ones who will be watching and deciding.
"How would Twitter know material was hacked"
They didn't say it was "hacked", the salient part of what they said was "it violated its rules on distributing private information". Which you know very well, seeing as you included it in your post.
"how would Facebook know it's misinformation?"
Because anybody reviewing it objectively can plainly see that it's nonsense. A plant. Designed to get people like you ranting and raving all over TehIntraWebTubes. Seems that it worked. Is it nice to be used like that? Do you enjoy it?
Because anybody reviewing it objectively can plainly see that it's nonsense. A plant. Designed to get people like you ranting and raving all over TehIntraWebTubes. Seems that it worked. Is it nice to be used like that? Do you enjoy it?
Sure, it helps me give my occipitofrontalis a good workout.
But, and here's a really crazy idea.. What if it's true? Parts of the conspiracy certainly are, so Hunter's job with Burisma. Or just accompanying Joe for.. no apparent reason. One of the official denials is that nobody told veteran Senator, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Judiciary Committee or just Vice President that Hunter taking the Burisma job whilst Joe was point-man on Ukraine.. might have raised a few eyebrows. Nobody told him it might look like a conflict of interest, and none of his political experience gave him any concerns either.
But such is politics. At least the Biden transition team have been able to avail themselves of the advice and contacts from, say, Carlos Monje, previously Twitter's Director of Public Policy. Or even get a refresher course on ethics from Jessica Hertz, previously of Facebook, and may soon be responsible for "enforcement, oversight, and compliance" at Team Biden. I'm sure her role is internally focused rather than ensuring Twitter, Facebook etc comply though.
@Jake,
Yet ... Twitter was silent over the Trump Tax information story.
Here... the tax documents were stolen. Meaning someone committed a criminal act to provide Trump's information. NYT is protected by (NY Times v. United States)
W.R.T Biden's emails...
There was no hacking and Biden legally lost the right to those emails when he forgot to pick up his laptop.
Here there is no criminal act or hacking.
IMHO both stories should run.
But that didn't happen.
Dorsey and company are in hot water.
"Biden legally lost the right to those emails when he forgot to pick up his laptop."
eh...what? So if I accidentality leave something somewhere, it's fair game to anyone who finds it? Dunnoi about in the USA, but here in the UK that would be theft. If it's not yours and you take it without permission with no intention to attempt to trace the owner and return it, no matter where you find it, that's theft. That includes leaving something at a repair shop.
Wow.
Three thumbs down when Hunter Biden signed an agreement that if he failed to pick up the laptop in 90 days that the laptop became the property of the store? So Biden lost the rights to the laptop.
This is actually very common and legal in the states.
What is now emerging is what else the guy found on the laptop. There are stories in the media... after Maria Bartalomo ?sp? interviewed a Senator who hinted at the allegation of Child Pornography was found on the laptop.
While the FBI has been silent, some reporter uncovered that the agent from the FBI who signed the subpoena for the laptop had been investigating Child Pornography. I saw the interview on Fox Business over the weekend.
I suspect that because its an ongoing investigation, everyone is mum and we're forced to draw our own conclusions. (This is what makes the NBC story about why the FBI is taking their time a bit laughable. )
[* Free clue to NBC... When you have photos of Hunter passed out w a crack pipe along w emails where at least one had been confirmed to be real... claiming Russian interference and a disinformation campaign... kinda laughable... no? ]
Come on everyone, recite the pledge with me:I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Trump,
indivisible,with liberty and justice only for rich white Republicans.
There FTFY. How could possibly believe that "one Nation under Trump" could possibly be indivisible?!?
Saaaay, yer not from 'round heah, are ya?
Twitter flags Covid disinformation. Trump and his pretend disease expert, (actually a Fox News pundit), get their messages flagged and some messages banned.
Pai says nothing.
Twitter bans a load of fake Russian troll accounts pretending to be 'Antifa' and 'Black lives matter"
Pai says nothing.
Twitter bans a load of fake black men, "blacks for Trump" with fake 'black man' stock photos and template driven trolls.
Pai says nothing.
Twitter bans QAnon disinformation, that Phillipines 8Chan crank on Russian infrastructure pretending to be an FBI agent undercover.
Pai says nothing.
Twiiter blocks Kayleigh McEnany tweet promoting the Russian attack package that Rudy Guilliani & GRU agent Andriy Derkach cooked up.
Pai says how dare you block our bosses October surprise!
Yeh Pai we get it, there are always people like you that will sell out their country.
I think you're a bit less objective.
Considering that all of the MSM organizations have their own pet medical expert on staff and still tend to get medical facts wrong... especially when it comes to facts that spoil the narrative.
I guess you're ok with the fact that Twitter and Facebook have monopolies in their respective industry categories. [* Note: until the courts find them to be monopolies, they are defacto monopolies ... ]
You're ok, where Twitter and FB employees have joined Biden's 'transition team' and now these stories are getting censored.
Kinda says it all, eh comrade?
Non-partisan Media Matters? It's designed to attack the political right, only run by Dem actors, you know better than calling Media Matter 'non-partisan'.
This week, the Tech Oligarchy has banned hard evidence of a wealthy politician's family widespread grift 'business'. Reporting from the fourth largest newspaper in the US has been banned for reporting on a leftist politician's eye-watering corruption. Shame on twitter and shame on the Reg hacks.
We only get a curated narrow leftist scope on political tech/IT issues from authoritarian 'Wokes'. We are being 'protected', soviet style, against whatever their opine/wish is 'Misinformation'.
This week, the Tech Oligarchy has banned hard evidence of a wealthy politician's family widespread grift 'business'.
There were apparently hard drives, but it's not necessarily hard evidence. It could just be a digital equivalent of the Hitler Diaries.. But who needs evidence anyway? The conspiracy has already been officially denied-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory
The Post published images and PDF copies of text that purported to be emails, but their authenticity and origin has not been determined. A Wall Street Journal reporter observed that the metadata of the PDFs indicated they had been created in the fall of 2019, though the emails were supposedly from 2014 and 2015.
So sayeth Wiki. So it must be true? Wiki is, afer all, a 'reliable source'. So is the WSJ, after all they reported on the Steele Dossier. But it raises legitmate concerns. It can't be 'fact checked' without decent forensic examination by a trusted, politically neutral party. So the FBI has it, but people don't trust them following on from 'RussiaGate'. Why there were PDF's is a reasonable question, as is why the story seems to have lain dormant since late 2019. But there are also reasonable questions around Biden's potential conflicts of interest, or just why Burisma chose to hire Hunter Biden, despite his lack of experience & knowledge.
But such is politics. Especially perhaps Ukrainian politics. There were attempts to impeach Trump over improper actions wrt Ukraine, but allegations that Biden's done the same thing are simply denied as 'fake news' or 'conspiracy theories'.. It's not hard to understand why there's a distrust of politicians, and the media though.
I would also like to point out for the record that the New York Post is a tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, that the repair store owner refuses to go on record to say that it was Hunter Biden that left the notebook there, and to say that the timing of this "revelation" is to say the least highly suspect.
The repair shop owner is legally blind. Note: not blind, but legally blind. There is a distinction.
Legally blind means that even w corrective lenses, your eyesight is less than -8.0 diopters.
So he would have a hard time recognizing Hunter Biden. Especially if he's never seen him before.
The file metadata was created when the drive was copied by the shop owner. Obviously, he didn't use Encase. What we need is the original hard drive held by the FBI. Hopefully, and considering how awful the FBI has been in handling evidence for the last dozen years or so, that's a big hope, the original metadata is intact.
Yeah, I'm wandering down the rabbit hole, but it's something to do while I wait on compiles.
Yeah, I'm wandering down the rabbit hole, but it's something to do while I wait on compiles.
Yep, it's political theatre involving sadism and masochism. But it's also part of the regulatory debate. So ISPs (Information Service Providers) argue they should have similar 'common carrier' protections afforded to ISPs (Internet Service Providers). So the Information Services say they're also just the messenger, don't shoot. Call them CSPs, or Content Service Providers for simplicity.
The FCC regulates under the US Communications Act, of which s.230 is part, and regulates ISPs, CSPs, and broadcast media (TV & radio). No idea who regulates print media. The FCCs also been flip-flopping (or floundering, dying fish-like) regarding 'Net Neutrality'. CSPs blocking or banning communications obviously violates that, along with common carrier principles, or the idea that CSPs are just a neutral conduit. But the FCC's part of this mess, whether it wants to be, or not. Which may or may not lead to tighter regulation of the previously 'free' Internet.
Then I guess there's other law. I don't know about US election law, but in the UK, once an election is called, broadcasters & news publishers are meant to play nicely and be neutral. CSPs kind of sit outside some of that regulation though, unless it's a website for a regulated broadcaster/newspaper.
So all a bit messy with lots of different legislation and regulation trying to catch up with the disruptive Internet.. Which after 30yrs or so, has managed to be largely self-regulating, despite political interference. I suspect there'll soon be a split though, with ISPs still regarded as common carriers/conduits, and CSPs becoming more regulated in line with traditional media.. Which may or may not be a good thing.. Probably not, because politicians. They're issues that have been festering for many years though, and may be brought to a head thanks to 'election interference', foreign or domestic.
The laptop thing I guess would fall under electoral laws. So it seems like there's a lot of political theatre given the delay between the laptops being 'found', and 'bombshells' being dropped. Which also raises questions around comments from Giuliani about still going through the data, when the data may have been available for nearly a year. So for plain news, the timing seems off. Which was much the same with things like the Clinton emails. Drip feeding releases smacks of editorialising.
@Jelly
Hate to break it to you...
The emails have been verified to be real.
What you're missing is that the FBI has had the laptop since December.
This information was known to the FBI while Nancy was busy impeaching Trump.
(And this would have vindicated Trump...)
The reason you saw the delay in this coming out... its an Oct surprise.
What's missing is the FBI's comment on this. Along with why they didn't come forward back in Jan which would have given them enough time to verify and validate the material.
I suspect because there is a national security implication ... they kept it quiet.
"to summarize. democrats approve of censoring others point of view as long as it's not theirs that is being censored. par for the course for the hypocrites that are also known as asses aka donkeys."
Pot, kettle, black. See Trump and his screams of "fake news" for anything he doesn't agree with. Is it one sided when both side do the same?
After years of republicans saying the FCC doesn't have any ability to rule on "net neutrality" and claiming they are anti-regulation, and claiming that bakeries should be free to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings because "private business" now a private business deciding what it is going to broadcast to the world requires regulation from the FCC?
..that harms regular people.
Still getting phone call spam and annoying landline calls 5+ times on a slow day. He won't get Big Telecom to fix it.
He also won't force Big Telecom to fix broken Caller ID, where a call seems to come from a neighbour, but instead it's a guy with an Indian accent telling me my Windows license is expired and I'll be arrested if I don't pay.
Now he wants to regulate tech giants? How 'bout first regulate the tech the FCC was created to do.
(ring ring) Hello? What?! My 23 year old car is out of warranty?
He also won't force Big Telecom to fix broken Caller ID, where a call seems to come from a neighbour, but instead it's a guy with an Indian accent telling me my Windows license is expired and I'll be arrested if I don't pay.
I blame the Internet, especially SIP. But often the problem is due to Small Telecom, ie people with a passing knowledge of SIP and an Internet connection.
But see-
https://www.fcc.gov/document/mandating-stirshaken-combat-spoofed-robocalls-0
The Commission adopted an item that adopts rules requiring originating and terminating voice service providers to implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework in the IP portions of their networks, and proposes additional measures
Which relies on a trust model. On the Internet. Or it'll be additional revenue for CAs flogging certs. Also an issue with home working. So home workers and employers probably want to be able to make outbound calls presenting the work number, not their home.. Which means spoofing the home connection CID, or making sure workers route their calls via their employer. Especially if their employer requires monitoring/recording for regulatory reasons.
Which also involves some FUN wrt 'Net Neutrality. So if calls terminate via PSTN, then CID can be validate at the egress.. But PSTN is going the way of the modem, and 'PSTN' can often be a phone jack on an IP ATA, with the call going via broadband. Or it could be all-SIP, in which case implementing STIR/SHAKEN will only work for 'official' calls, unless networks use DPI/filters to block/reject call attempts that don't go via their service provider's gateways.
And it may do little to prevent calls from non-US spammers & scammers because non-US networks aren't implementing STIR/SHAKEN, so only limited use with international calls.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
