back to article UK watchdogs ask how they can better regulate algorithms

UK watchdogs under the banner of the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) have called for views on the benefits and risks of how sites and apps use algorithms. While "algorithm" can be defined as a strict set of rules to be followed by a computer in calculations, the term has become a boogeyman as lawmakers grapple with …

  1. Andy The Hat Silver badge


    I think the use of the word "algorithms" shows the lack of understanding of computer systems by "those in power".

    Instead of the implicit assumption that "algorithms are bad!" (which is a logical equivalent to "computer programmers are bad") perhaps the more sensible target description should be something more like "machine driven personal profiling and targetting by corporate entities"?

    1. devin3782

      Re: Algorithms?

      Agreed, I go further in so much as you cannot withhold a service/product or discriminate against a customer by offering discounts if the customer wants to opt out and opt out should be the default setting for data collection.

      1. Snowy Silver badge

        Re: Algorithms?

        Should be opt in rather than opt out.

    2. Eclectic Man Silver badge

      Re: Algorithms?

      There is a very strong tendency to misunderstand what algorithms are, and what they should be for. The statistician Sir David Spiegelhalter referring to predicting mortality rates in older people said that the model "fitted the data very well" about increased mortality due to factors such as smoking, drinking, diabetes etc. It is reality that exists, and algorithms which are used to implement models of reality to predict or explain events.

      Many people seem to think that once you have a statistical model, it is 'reality' whereas in fact it is a model, and any computer program which 'implements' an algorithm does it only to an approximation of 'reality'.

      1. ThatOne Silver badge

        Re: Algorithms?

        A statistical model is only as good as the data you fed it, and can be totally, ridiculously wrong (I have names...) when you forget to take in account some required factor (either because you didn't think or knew it mattered). Unfortunately, once such a model is built people tend to automatically consider it as all-knowing and infallible.

        I blame the old SciFi movies where "The Computer" was always omniscient and always had the right answers. People haven't yet learned real computers are just glorified pocket calculators and not some omnipotent mix between an old sage and an oracle.

        1. My-Handle Silver badge

          Re: Algorithms?

          You'd think that after they've been offered the fifth TV in a row after they've just bought one they might perhaps consider that "the algorithm" might actually be fallible. Frequently so.

    3. iron Silver badge

      Re: Algorithms?

      Absolutely. Every word out of that woman's mouth proves she does not understand her remit in the slightest and has no interest in trying to understand it. Which tbh makes her the perfect person for a government job.

      If they pass some stupid rule that we have to publish all algorithms before they are used then how will we fix bugs, write new software, etc?

      1. Adrian 4

        Re: Algorithms?

        Depends how you interpret 'publish'.

        Open source software has all its algorithms published.

    4. Martin-73 Silver badge

      Re: Algorithms?

      But you wouldn't downstream a policeman!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Algorithms?

        I’m going to defend her use of downstream. It’s a reasonable, if never ever used term. I downstream a tv show while watching. Netflix upstream it to me. I download some software, steam uploads it to me. All quite reasonable. Having said that the dishonourable lady is thick as mince with an added thickening agent.

  2. Howard Sway Silver badge

    "but there's also a problematic side to algorithms"

    This is like saying there's a problematic side to breathing, because living people could do something harmful.

    God forbid they should ever send a minster for "digital" on a one day course explaining what digital computing actually is, they might stop thinking that it all runs on magic, and realise that algorithms and computer code are the same thing. I await Mad Nad's law mandating that all code be sent to the Algorithm Police so it can be checked for unbadness before compiling it, and being hauled in for questioning as to what harm this suspicious add(x, y) function is going to cause.

    1. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

      Re: "but there's also a problematic side to algorithms"

      Algorithms are just a small part of the problem when considering programs which are data-driven. Who is going to review gigabytes of training data? Another algorithm? Or Britain's arts graduate civil servants?

      1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge

        Re: Colin Wilson 2 - Apple have got this right!

        a sub-contractor in India, obviously

      2. katrinab Silver badge

        Re: "but there's also a problematic side to algorithms"

        On a machine-learning / "AI" system, the training data *is* the algorithm.

        1. W.S.Gosset

          Re: "but there's also a problematic side to algorithms"

          Well put.

  3. VoiceOfTruth Silver badge

    I have very little faith in these chair polishers

    First they would need to understand what they want to regulate. So they are already stuck.

    1. ThatOne Silver badge

      Re: I have very little faith in these chair polishers

      Come on, since when do politicians try to understand anything?

      Even if they could, it's so much easier, quicker and more gratifying to force the perceived solution upon the Great Unwashed, to show them who is boss, and how clever you are. That's how pi = 4 and other similar genius ideas come to be.

  4. ThatOne Silver badge


    > While digital secretary Nadine Dorries – who reportedly asked Microsoft "when they were going to get rid of algorithms"

    Kill me NOW!

    1. Binraider Silver badge

      Re: OMG

      There was an equally dumb question asked by a UKIP representative. What happens when renewable energy runs out?

      These people walk among us!

      1. ThatOne Silver badge

        Re: OMG

        I don't mind them walking, as long as they aren't the ones supposed to rule my life!

        I would say thank [deity] I'm not British, but there are specimen just as bright over here...

      2. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

        Re: OMG

        Solar power is in short supply every night. There again, do politicians understand that?

        1. Zippy´s Sausage Factory

          Re: OMG


          Do they understand things?

          What things do they understand?

          Let's find out!

          That would have been a tv show I'd watch. Whether J D Salinger was producing it or not.

        2. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

          Re: There again, do politicians understand that?

          OTOH there is an infinite supply of wind emanating from Parliament. Have they thought of mounting a wind turbine directly outside?

      3. Phones Sheridan Silver badge

        Re: OMG

        It does run out. Wind stops blowing, clouds stop sun shining, in fact it stops shining once a day regular as clockwork. Renewable energy runs out more frequently than fossil fuels do. Fossil fuels have been predicted to have ran out by now since when I was at school in the 70s. Bar the occasional power cut the gas is still flowing and the lights are still coming on.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: OMG

          Renewables are intemittent. They do not run out.

          Some decent storage systems would resolve that particular difficulty. Plenty of technically feasible answers to that problem.

          Gas and oil are going to be around for a while yet, and no doubt cause a few more wars as we Scrabble over the dregs that are left. I haven't heard a windmill cause a war.

          Don't worry, fresh water will be next on the shortage list, which will end the problems with overpopulation for us...

      4. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: OMG

        Not a bad question to ask on a calm night.

      5. W.S.Gosset

        Re: OMG

        > There was an equally dumb question asked by a UKIP representative. What happens when renewable energy runs out?

        Solar power will run out at 8% of the world's power supply.

        That's when it will have exhausted the world's entire reserves of coltan.

        At 12%, it exhausts 2 more minerals.

        Solar power is the least renewable energy source on the planet.

        1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

          Re: the world's entire reserves of coltan.

          I thought at first that was a brand of sun tan lotion.

    2. Eclectic Man Silver badge

      Re: OMG

      TahtOne: "Kill me NOW!"

      No chance, if I've got to suffer this lot, so have you!

      Stiff upper lip and all that, don't you know.

  5. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Apparently it never rains but it pours ... and oft can there be deluges of epic biblical proportions

    When things are bad they can be very bad. When things can be very good they are guaranteed to be very bad for things that are bad and/or not good and great. The problems and battles that you might see and realise are all before you now with the likes of algorithms, and you are racing headlong blindly forward to try to control and mitigate with regulation in fields that are beyond your command, are only the tip of the titanic dilemma you will have to deal with and submit to in order to survive and prosper as if in the lead with changing fundamentals presenting events/future views elsewhere ..... for there is no other available option to choose.

    The likes of the following, which is available in all sorts of custom flavours dependent upon the assets and liabilities of targeted customers/valued clients, is that which confronts you and should you try to deny exists, compete against injudiciously or oppose wholeheartedly, can simply decide to thwart you via ITs very strange means and virtual memes. IT and AI are very good and great at that.

    amanfromMars [2204290825] ....... saying more on

    [Thank you. Your comment will be displayed soon after reviewing.]

    Well, well, well, Stew Magnuson, that's quite another AWEsome type development surely [UKGBNI Army Warfighting Experiment] ...... so maybe not anything really new to that and those with more than just experimental experience in the field with its many very sensitive, highly proactive virtual arenas of relatively anonymous engagement realising that having leading skin in the game is akin to being able to name one's own price for what one would know and be prepared to share about how to enable and/or disable vital elements and virulent components within it whenever one likes ...... which to be perfectly honest with all, one needs to be thinking and realising easily costs failing opposition and trailing competition crippling sums in the trillions, given the nature of that which is discovered as one delves ever further and deeper into that which is uncovered and energised.

    However, it may very well be the case, that expanding command and control of such developments across all militarised and para-militarised services is not something which can similarly scaled up and expanded, and such will thus always remain in the secure and failsafe grip of a very select few indeed ........ which I suppose is quite normal and therefore fully to be expected ..... and such will always be, as has always been the case, a private/pirate sector/body leading from way out in front of all others in the public and military and paramilitary sectors which will always be dependent upon that which is fed back down to them from that which is phormed and active way up ahead of them.

    And as more information and intelligence escapes and merges in these times and spaces of 0days and Remote ACTive [Advanced Cyber Threat] Access Trojans will there be more instances of evidence in support of a drift towards a unifying singularity of purpose and destination, for the following which was also very recently shared with you here on National Defense Magazine in a comment on your article entitled "JUST IN: Startup Creates Simulator for Info-Warfare Ops" 4/27/2022 says very much the same as all in the above ......

    “A U.K. startup has introduced computer-based training software that simulates the information environment warfighters encounter during conflict.”

    To only imagine that as something relatively novel and not also realise it long active as a well practised model [modi vivendi/operandi] deployed virtually everywhere and exercised by all manner of private and pirate and public operations/operands, some renegade rogue and malevolent and other not so, identifies one as being catastrophically vulnerable to the programs presented by the very best of the best in their class in the Live Operational Virtual Environment/Virtual Information Environment chosen for remote manipulation and sublime alteration/metadatabase adjustment.

    And its success, and one would be very wrong to deny such developments are remarkably successful, has one having to admit that the true nature of one’s human existence is led by remote spookily strange entangled virtual stimulation of thoughts for activation in simulation arenas copied to/from Earth ……. which has one pondering on whether it be a human Earth based project, which maybe can be interrupted or disrupted and prevented or an alien space based program which maybe cannot be interrupted or disrupted and prevented?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't see why they need to regulate Al Gores musical ability.

    Seriously though, as stupid as my comment is, the policing or analysing of an algorithm that might be built from thousands of pieces of data is actually stupider. Especially something that could potentially be evolving based on new inputs. Whilst we're on this subject could someone please own up to buying the same thing from Amazon multiple times? Someone must have for that algorithm. I can only use one spatula. Why do I need another? Exception for fish spatula of course.

    1. ThatOne Silver badge

      > the policing or analysing of an algorithm [...] is actually stupider

      It's the use of algorithms which needs some regulation. Like for instance for those used to hire people, and which might cause some classes of people to be totally unable to get a job. It is necessary, since algorithms are such blunt tools, to make sure there are safeguards built in the process.


      > someone please own up to buying the same thing from Amazon multiple times

      The issue is, as usual, that you think it's all about you... It isn't. Those ads aren't paid by you, but by the ad agency, and the ad agency pays more for "targeted" ads. It doesn't matter if those ads are relevant to you, as long as Amazon can bill a premium for showing them to you.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        How is an algorithm going to decide who to hire? On what basis do you train it? Sure it can look for keywords in CV's but unless someone is purposely making it biased then bias shouldn't be possible.

        As for Amazon, Amazon makes money whoever I buy from. The idea behind those emails is to try and show me something I want yet they show what I already have. I'm sure they do get paid by ad agencies but not as much as a sale would bring them by working out what I want. They have actually got better at this over the years or maybe I'm just addicted to kitchen gadgets.

        1. SloppyJesse

          Training is simple.

          You take all the CVs you've considered and you separate them into ones you discarded and ones you interviewed. Or you take all the interviewed candidates and separate them into hired / not hired. Or if you want to get really clever hired and did well at annual review / hired and quit after 3 months.

          Hey presto you have a classifier that splits future CVs into good and bad. And you've probably just embedded all sorts of unconscious bias into your model. If you've done a really good job you've also got a good dose of irrational factors in there - like people that use Word versus AbiWord - and illegal discrimination - companies that have tried automated CV filtered have found it's really hard to hide protected attributes like gender, race and age from these models.

          And that's the real problem with many of the large statistical models - If you shove lots of data in the algorithm will find patterns. But you really need to be able to explain what patterns a model is identifying before you accept the output is delivering what you want.

          1. Jc (the real one)

            Many years ago when I was looking for work, I used to think that agencies employed YTS (that dates ir!) people to process CVs. Then my daughter had 2 weeks work experience in an agency (so she was probably about 15) and given the task of finding suitable applicants from the CV database. Finally, I understood


        2. ThatOne Silver badge

          > unless someone is purposely making it biased then bias shouldn't be possible.

          Exactly. If you have some bias the result will be biased too, but even if you aren't biased at all, simply training your "AI" with only WASP profiles will make it reject women and people of different origins.

          For instance, I'm sure there are other, even more unexpected ways to obtain an unexpected bias.

          As for ads, how often did you see an ad and said "I need this!"? I admit it happened to me once or twice, but that's an average of once every 5-10 years. No, showing ads is just, exclusively to be able to bill somebody for them, and thus make some easy money. A couple cents per visitor multiplied by hundreds of thousands of visitors results in a nice steady income stream. Amazon doesn't expect those ads to work, nor does the ad agency. It's only the chump ad agency's client who thinks it might, potentially, eventually, not be totally wasted money.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            I have a hard time seeing myself clicking on any online ad ever, except by some mouseslip or other.

            Ads like that can, however, be used to ensure the brand or product is top-of-mind.

            That isn't as directly measurable, but it's the only use I can think of.

            Lots of ads aren't set up like that of course, and as I see it tons and tons of money is wasted on ads. And even more privacy is invaded and breached trying to both track the ads and pretend that some ad is relevant to whoever is seeing it.

            Is my view really more valuable if you know my specific data, as opposed to just knowing I read The Register? Surely that's sufficient interest for an ad to be 'tailored'.

            1. ThatOne Silver badge

              > Is my view really more valuable if you know my specific data

              That's what the ad slingers tell their clients (ie. the marketing department idiots paying for those ads). It's all about "added value". Of course it's nonsense.

              But once the fad had taken hold and only targeted ads are henceforth acceptable, you need to be able to claim that your ads are even more targeted than just "targeted". Hence the unstoppable escalation, even if they don't really use this personal information when showing you ads (it would be too complicated and thus expensive). But they can make a nice additional income selling it in the new market this has created...

              In short, it's like the male peacocks' tails: Way too big, a hindrance if not a menace in normal life, but if you get rid of it you're bound to remain without descendants. Likewise, for the ad slingers the only way is forward, collect even more personal information to be able to make a difference among the females clients.

            2. David Hicklin Bronze badge

              "Ads like that can, however, be used to ensure the brand or product is top-of-mind."

              I did read once that a lot of advertising is just for brand awareness so that you automatically think of them when you do want something.

    2. cookieMonster Silver badge

      Someone here might have bought more than one chainsaw recently

    3. dvd

      "Whilst we're on this subject could someone please own up to buying the same thing from Amazon multiple times? Someone must have for that algorithm. I can only use one spatula. Why do I need another?"

      I had the same problem when I bought a new toilet seat. I mean, how many arses does Amazon think I have?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You can however have a spatula in the dishwasher that hasn’t been on and need to use one. Poor example.

        Toilet seat? Slightly better, but and I have no idea on the stats here, how many homes only have a single toilet these days? Assuming installation at the same time and same usage patterns could you not expect to need to replace seats at roughly the same time?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Many years ago, I bought two copies of The Office (each season) in HMV, at a bargain price. Kept one set for myself, sold the other set on eBay for more than the two sets had cost.

    4. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Whilst we're on this subject could someone please own up to buying the same thing from Amazon multiple times?

      A couple of years ago I bought myself a nice new Bosch circular saw online. When it arrived I took it to my workshop, looked around for somewhere to store it and decided that the shelf under my woodworking bench would be good. Except that the identical Bosch circular saw I had bought two years previously was already there. It least I'm consistent.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Finding the length of a word is an algorithm, and I can think of two ways of doing it. Now there’s a third - just get the user to count the number of words in a document themselves.

    That’s progress ;)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Tape measure?


      Piece of string?

  8. Jonathon Green

    There is actually a fairly simple answer to this…

    …although it won’t be popular with the people who want to deploy machine learning or ther algorithmic processes in human facing decision making process or those with an interest in helping people to make (more) money out of such deployments.

    A statutory right to human review.

    Every organisation commercial or otherwise employing algorithmic decision making in ways which have an impact on actual people (employment, access to education or other public services, access to financial services (or any other commercial services), forum moderation, allocation of resources, planning decisions, targeting of advertising or marketing, the lot…) would be required to declare that and to provide an easy, obvious, one click (or equivalent) option to have any decision made on the basis of those processes reviewed by a competent, qualified human being (or group of human beings) with the power to overturn that decision. Failure to provide an adequate explanation/justification or other response would carry a stiff penalty.

    Somehow I doubt that idea will find much traction with government or service providers though…

    1. Jonathon Green

      Re: There is actually a fairly simple answer to this…

      Incidentally I think there’s a strong case for “right of review” even in the case of a nominally positive decision…

      Imagine a situation where somebody is looking to make a major purchase, like, say, a new home which is close to the edge of affordability. They make a series of finance applications, a number of mainstream, big name lenders decline the application while one less well known lenders makes an offer, albeit possibly at a higher rate of interest. A curious potential customer might wonder about this press the “why was I approved for this loan?” button, and the answer which comes back might be something along the lines of…

      “Our algorithmic decision support system reports that there’s a 50% chance of you defaulting on this loan within the next 5 years but we can still make money by packaging your loan up with a bunch of others and selling it on at a discount to a company you’ve never heard of based in a country you’ve never heard of, who have a considerably more robust position on default collections than you’d expect from a high street name, and who are not bound by industry codes of practice which high street names subscribe to. Furthermore there are conditions attached which make it prohibitively expensive, if not downright impossible to refinance the loan elsewhere at more competitive rates as and when your circumstances improve”.

      That sort of response might make people think again about stretching a little for (say) a nicer house sooner. It might even lead to people taking more of an interest in boring things like financial industry regulation come election time…

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There is actually a fairly simple answer to this…

      GDPR already states decisions cannot be based on an automated process without some form of review being possible doesn’t it?

  9. Trigun

    Hmm I just can't think of what's happened recently which may have brought this subject to the surface...

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's a pity that some "algorithms" are designed to modify themselves!!

    ....notably in the area of neural networks (so called AI) where the network is designed to "learn". is perfectly possible to test such an application (in some limited way) before it is deployed in production.....but once the "learning" starts, the application is modifying its own behaviour.

    A further snag with neural network technology is that it happens to be very poor at REPORTING its own behaviour. So asking such an application "Please explain the reasoning behind your latest result" is a waste of time.

    "I'm sorry Dave....I can't do that!"

    P.S. Jonathon Green suggests that an application should be subject "to human review". In the case of neural networks, his suggestion would need to require a "human review" once every day....or even once every hour! Good luck with that!

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: It's a pity that some "algorithms" are designed to modify themselves!!

      Yes, it is a bit of a swamp for skunkworks, AC, and in the acceptance of that realisation along with the ability to navigate it safely and securely above the fray, lie all of the opportunities that are rewarded with riches beyond measure and compare ....... and that is most probably why it is proving so popular and troublesome in fields which are considered by former traditionally established bodies, both vital and unavoidable for command and control, but innavigable by such former traditionally established bodies themselves.

    2. Jonathon Green

      Re: It's a pity that some "algorithms" are designed to modify themselves!!

      “P.S. Jonathon Green suggests that an application should be subject "to human review". In the case of neural networks, his suggestion would need to require a "human review" once every day....or even once every hour! Good luck with that!”

      Actually that’s not what I had in mind,

      it’s the individual decisions (refusal of a loan application, having a job application turned down, having a comment or post removed from a forum, having the area you live in excluded from a government program, etc, etc, etc) I’d like to see a Right of Review for where an automated system has been involved in the decision. In a lot of cases that’ll mean reviews being requested a *lot* more than once an hour and would be very, very, very expensive, possibly prohibitively so. I’m seeing that as a feature rather than a bug…

  11. Phones Sheridan Silver badge

    how they can better regulate algorithms

    Easy, ban fraudulent ones. Take Google's search algorithm. Anyone with a website wholeheartedly believes that their SEO practices have got them onto the first page in Google. Only problem is, so do the other 1000000 owners of the other websites competing with them. There is only 5 slots available, yet 1000000 people think they have achieved to obtain one of them. The same goes for those people paying to appear in the search results. There is only a few slots available, yet thousands of people thinking they have managed to outbid their competitors. It's a con to anyone that can count.

    1. FlamingDeath Silver badge

      Re: how they can better regulate algorithms

      You’re conflating pay per click advertising with SEO

      Two completely different things

      1. Phones Sheridan Silver badge

        Re: how they can better regulate algorithms

        No I'm not, I've listed both, because both are fraudulent.

  12. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

    They need to sort this problem quickly now...

    They will no doubt use the bubble method.

    1. philstubbington

      Re: They need to sort this problem quickly now...

      Well, that’s either true or false.

  13. YakkingUdon

    Watchdog seeks meta-algorithm which bites algorithm

    To understand a disordered/chaotic world, it's encapsuled analytical methods all the way down.

  14. BlokeInTejas

    Algorithms aint nuttin new...


    Well, they've been in use.. forever.

    Been employed? The employer had an algorithm to sort out the likely candidates from the less likely, and one to decide when to stop sorting.

    Ever had a pay raise? Algorithm.

    Ever got fired? Algorithm.

    Ever got stopped for speeding? Algorithm.

    Ever been convicted of a crime? Algorithm.

    Ever paid tax? How much you were supposed to pay was set by an algorithm.

    And all those and more were algorithms implemented by people. And apparently make society systematically racist. Or inegalitarian. Or rich. Or something that a whiner doesn't like.

    I don't think the idiots muttering about algorithms have the vaguest idea of what an algorithm is.

    But in the end, suppose that we have two companies (or equivalent large scale entities). One tunes its algorithms to find and hire mostly black candidates. The other tunes its algorithms to find and hire the best they can find, using the measures of competence and all the correlated data they've found.

    Who likely gets the best additions to its workforce?

    And if you don't like the wording 'to find and hire mostly black candidates', change 'black' for whatever. If you're not using the best search possible, you'll end up at a disadvantage.

    So algorithms act in a competitive marketplace. So they'll get better.

    Which leads to all sorts of issues, all of which are the same as if it the algorithms 'running' on humans instead of giant piles of silicon.

  15. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

    Just mention

    algorithm is a islamic/muslim word

    Should have the likes of dorris spitting out her tea and demanding its banned in case it tries to subvert web users into becoming terrorists



    "a workplan for the coming year in which it aims to:

    Better protect children online

    Promote competition and privacy in online advertising

    Support improvements in algorithmic transparency

    Enable innovation in the industries they regulate"

    Well there you go... think of the children..... that will get a tabloid or 2 on our side

    The second point is a wtf are you on about.

    The 3rd point is most people would'nt understand an algorithm if it was printed out in big letters and small words

    And finally.. we're gonna regulate the internet advertisers... and fail just like every other attempt..

    But hey.. it made so good headlines...

  16. ibmalone


    Nice to see the Butlerian Jihad has arrived early

  17. Binraider Silver badge

    Maybe someone was offended by the band of the same name?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like