[HN Gopher] Exiled from the Metaverse before it even started: Fa...
___________________________________________________________________
Exiled from the Metaverse before it even started: Facebook bans are
for life
Author : lofties
Score : 204 points
Date : 2021-12-24 13:35 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.brian.jp)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.brian.jp)
| champagnois wrote:
| My family will never own Oculus products or anything connected to
| Facebook.
|
| Block and filter anything related to their platforms.
| amelius wrote:
| Never buy anything that is tethered by the vendor. From
| Nespresso cups to Apple IDs.
|
| There should be a "no-tether" law.
| voakbasda wrote:
| What about vendors that add tethering after the fact? That's
| far worse behavior, but even that has not been enough to
| change the status quo.
|
| My GoPro camera once worked fine without signing into their
| service. Then one day they forced me to create an account and
| log in, just to continue to use the app to control my
| hardware.
|
| This pissed me off so much that the camera was "accidentally"
| destroyed not long after, but not before thinking hard about
| tying it to a brick and returning it via their corporate
| office window. Now, I tell everyone that will listen to avoid
| buying their products. Shame on them and any company that
| does such despicable things to their own customers.
| j_m_b wrote:
| Metaverse, the next 3D television.
| tjpnz wrote:
| This is a decent comparison. Metaverse is going to have most of
| the same issues with eyestrain, even _more_ motion sickness and
| bulkier headgear. It might be a fun curiosity for some but it
| won 't gain the mainstream appeal that Facebook has (or at
| least once had).
| cma wrote:
| There will be varifocal displays eventually.
| haxiomic wrote:
| You're wrong on this one, pre-"metaverse" it was just called
| social vr, and that universe is really something special. The
| creativity and energy in there is like nothing I've ever seen
| before and it's very very exciting
|
| Not the vision you'll get from Meta however
| bebna wrote:
| mysterydip wrote:
| Unfortunately, network effects are in play. Lots of people use
| facebook for things trivial and important. Local municipalities
| using it for events, etc. If you're not on it, you don't have a
| voice.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| I'll probably eat my words saying this, but "normal people"
| ie non techies and non gamers are pretty reluctant to don VR
| headsets for anything.
|
| I predict meta will be a failure if it requires VR hardware.
|
| Not to mention the cost.
| Closi wrote:
| Well I guess there are two parts to that:
|
| > 1) I predict meta will be a failure if it requires VR
| hardware.
|
| Meta is almost certainly a word that gets banded around by
| (Ex-)Facebook meaning future communication platforms. In
| their eyes WhatsApp is part of the metaverse, FB is part of
| the metaverse, Oculus is part of the metaverse e.t.c.
|
| > 2) I predict meta will be a failure if it requires VR
| hardware. Not to mention the cost.
|
| Well the price of VR hardware has already gone from PS700
| hardware + a PS1.5k Computer to PS300 for one of the best
| headsets in 5 years (which does not need a separate
| computer to run) - so assuming you don't have a gaming
| computer, the cost is c1/5th of what it was not to long
| ago.
|
| There is no reason to believe that cost will be a barrier
| in the western world.
| threeseed wrote:
| > I predict meta will be a failure if it requires VR
| hardware.
|
| It doesn't.
|
| The idea behind Meta is that it is a multi-device
| experience all connected to the same backend.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Fair enough, in that sense we already are experiencing
| the "metaverse" for many online activities... Except no
| one refers to it like that.
| falcolas wrote:
| I've gotten my entire set of inlaws to use VR. They loved
| it. They were quite annoyed that I didn't bring it for
| Christmas again this year.
|
| If the experience they start with is entertaining and
| compelling, they'll use it.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| I remember having an Apple Newton, which was visionary but
| sucked. People would always say to me, normal people aren't
| going to carry a pocket computer around like that. And they
| wouldn't because it sucked. But also, what would they need
| it for? Things change.
| kova12 wrote:
| It is an interesting point. Yes, Facebook is a private firm
| and can do whatever it wants. But municipality is not. We
| must either ban public agencies from using such platforms or
| make them accountable to the sane standard as government
| VLM wrote:
| If you're banned from the public library its not a big
| deal.
|
| If your voting site is moved to the library, then it
| becomes a big deal.
|
| This became an issue in my state (or maybe larger area) WRT
| convicted pedos and similar convictions being able to vote,
| being legally barred from being within X feet of schools
| which are open, and voting sites being at schools.
|
| Solution was the kids get voting day off, which hopefully
| will increase voter participation if someday everyone gets
| voting day off.
| pasc1878 wrote:
| Isn't that normal. How can you have a voting place where
| normal use is ongoing?
|
| I am from UK and many voting places are schools and the
| whole school has the day off. I think this has been true
| for over a hundred years.
| VLM wrote:
| Utilization of the gym/community room/theater stage is
| never 100% anyway so on election Tuesday we'd spend a
| very late in the season gym class playing softball
| outside instead of field hockey in the gym, or stagecraft
| class would cohabitate with the wood shop for a day thus
| leaving the auditorium open.
|
| Because of various long term migration patterns at least
| in the USA we also have districts that are practically
| emptied out despite having huge schools so you could give
| the voters an entire floor if needed, and other districts
| that are so packed I know personally of two schools that
| have two gymnasiums so you just dedicate one gym for one
| day.
|
| School day off has been growing in the USA and I look
| forward to voting days being a holiday someday. Its a bit
| tricky because voter participation rates are low in the
| USA and some voters are uninformed enough to actually
| think we only have an election every four years, LOL,
| whereas its more like twice a year plus special elections
| where I live.
|
| Of course if voting could change anything it would be
| banned, and we're replacing philosophical politics with
| identity politics so soon all that'll matter at voting
| time is the genetics of your parents. Already at that
| point with some demographics. Still, its interesting.
| kova12 wrote:
| Well, you can't expect facebook to enable banned accounts
| for a single day, so that solution is off the table.
| Also, analogy with pedos is somewhat flawed: there is an
| actual reason why people don't want them around schools.
| Nobody justifies to people why some accounts are banned
| by facebook/google/etc. Most likely because they are no
| threat to society, but inconvenient to
| facebook/google/etc and their agenda. That's equivalent
| to mayor who dislikes you banning you from going to
| grocery store and giving no recourse or reasoning.
| VLM wrote:
| > there is an actual reason why people don't want them
| around schools
|
| Agreed, but the real point is there's a geographic
| location you can't legally go to for some valid reason
| that the supreme court insists you must have access to on
| election day, regardless of the other reasons.
|
| Numerous weird corner cases could be imagined; soon to be
| ex-wife teaches at your local polling place and your
| lawyer insists/demands you go no-contact or even worse
| the judge orders you to no-contact her, now you can't
| vote.
|
| One novelty that affects my kids is "in the old days" it
| was a city tradition to visit your old elementary school
| on the first day of school, but now its time to control
| people by fear thus terrorists are hiding behind every
| tree and fences everywhere and lockdowns and you're not
| allowed on school property without a guest badge and
| background screen or the cops will get called which does
| impact voting operations quite a bit compared to the 80s
| when they'd literally prop the doors open and be friendly
| if you wandered in.
|
| For a long time they we were just "oh well" you can
| always vote at city hall or vote by mail, but there was
| some kind of court case either locally or larger scale
| and now we shut down the schools entirely so they're not
| legally schools for one day.
| ericmay wrote:
| > If you're not on it, you don't have a voice.
|
| Depends on what you're trying to say doesn't it?
|
| But I'd challenge this overall sentiment. I haven't had
| Facebook since 2010 or so. Nothing bad happened. I have a
| large and loving family and lots of close friends that I
| spend time with. I didn't lose my voice. If I'm angry I call
| my representative or show up at their office. If a company
| does something I disagree with I don't buy their products and
| I leave feedback on their website.
|
| It's an illusion that we need Facebook or any other company
| as a conduit for feedback. We are _choosing_ that path. It's
| not one we need to take.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| > It's an illusion that we need Facebook or any other
| company as a conduit for feedback. We are choosing that
| path. It's not one we need to take.
|
| But it's a decision we took as a collective. Same as with
| many other things - we (people) use
| Facebook/Whatsapp/etcetera because _others_ are using them,
| not always because we need to.
|
| If you as an individual decide to pull the plug off that
| stuff while people, groups or others around you that you're
| in touch with are still using them, you're risking to
| become a digital outcast. (I used Facebook from 2012 until
| 2018 and yes, it became a little harder to get in touch
| with people or many things that just assume everyone uses
| Facebook)
| ericmay wrote:
| I wonder at what point I'll be a digital outcast. What
| will that look like? Will my wife just sit on the couch
| and only message me through Facebook? Will my 3 friends
| I've known since high school not send me a text message
| to get together to play tennis and organize virtual
| tennis on Meta and not invite me?
|
| I think more likely is that this concept is overhyped and
| fragile. Maybe you can think of something I'm missing
| here that not having Meta is causing ruin in my life for?
| mysterydip wrote:
| A few close contacts are easy to maintain with
| traditional means.
|
| Many of the hobby groups I was a part of have moved to
| either facebook or discord, and old presences like
| individual forums or websites have disappeared or are
| shells of their former selves. If you aren't in a lot of
| groups, maybe this doesn't affect you the same?
| ericmay wrote:
| Yea for some they moved to Slack but not a part of too
| many hobby groups or if I am I usually just subscribe to
| email updates. If they don't do those then yea I'd either
| get a text message or an invite some other way or just
| not be part of the group anymore (which goes to show it
| wasn't that important in the first place). It's kind of a
| filtering mechanism for important interactions.
| Tenoke wrote:
| I've survived all my life just fine not being able to
| drive, doesn't mean it wont inconvenience others to not
| have a license (though yes, even without that they'd
| 'survive').
|
| It'd definitely be harder to keep abreast of some events I
| go to without it and I'd never bother keeping the numbers
| of a lot of people I have on there without it yet can
| benefit from being able to reach.
| a9h74j wrote:
| > I've survived all my life just fine not being able to
| drive
|
| Interesting. We have _public transportation_ for those
| who either choose not to drive or cannot drive, or cannot
| afford a car, etc.
|
| Is Meta starting to act like a government if it can ban
| you from "driving" in Meta's Metaverse, if Meta's
| Metaverse becomes a dominant mode? Will there be public
| funded options with less restrictive access than driving
| in Meta's Metaverse?
| ericmay wrote:
| > I've survived all my life just fine not being able to
| drive, doesn't mean it wont inconvenience others to not
| have a license (though yes, even without that they'd
| 'survive').
|
| Don't think these are very equivalent but I don't think
| we should be designing society around cars either.
|
| > It'd definitely be harder to keep abreast of some
| events I go to without it and I'd never bother keeping
| the numbers of a lot of people I have on there without it
| yet can benefit from being able to reach.
|
| Everyone is different of course but I think for me
| meditation has helped just let go of people I've met. It
| makes the at-the-time interaction more interesting and
| meaningful for me because it's unique and fleeting. It
| also makes getting someone's phone number a more
| significant event because the interaction was so good
| that I think we should meet again. I also try to just
| stay in touch locally.
|
| Admittedly on the professional side I have LinkedIn for
| most of that stuff but I've had days where I've been very
| close to deleting that too but just haven't pulled the
| trigger. I think I'd be better off without it probably
| but it's also so useless except as a Rolodex that it's
| not doing too much harm.
|
| For me when I was at the loneliest and most depressing
| times in my life I had Facebook. When I met my amazing
| wife and moved back to Columbus and had a strong social
| support network and loving family it really made Facebook
| (or TikTok or w/e) irrelevant.
| arthur6667 wrote:
| helsinki wrote:
| This reads a bit like a plea to Facebook for account restoration.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Well, he is pretty open about this, despite his ambivalence to
| Facebook he even says he realises that it has more a hold of
| him than he thought it would.
|
| Hang in there. De-Zucking your life is a net positive.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Using a different e-mail or phone number should be enough to
| evade the ban.
| b0rsuk wrote:
| Yaa101 wrote:
| Wear it like a badge of honor...
| CommieBobDole wrote:
| It amazes me that on the one hand, people keep getting banned
| from Facebook for odd inscrutable reasons, while on the other
| hand, none of the spammers or scammers I've reported ever get
| banned, no matter how obvious.
|
| Literally yesterday, I was looking through my ignored friend
| requests and found some random profile that had thousands of
| 'friends', and all the posts in his timeline were ads for dodgy
| weight loss and/or boner pills, with hundreds of people tagged in
| the photos. Dozens of posts a day, every post title full of
| punctuation-as-text to avoid triggering spam filters. Reported it
| as a spam account, got a response a few hours later that they had
| checked the profile, determined it didn't violate their community
| standards and that it would not be removed.
|
| I guess it's just fascinating that with all that money and power,
| they've managed to build a moderation system with such a high
| rate of both false-positives and false-negatives. You'd think
| they could at least constrain it to being terrible in one
| direction.
| sockaddr wrote:
| On one hand I agree, it is perplexing. But then I realize that
| profile with a picture of a hot girl with lots of "friends"
| counts as a user that brings "engagement on the platform" so
| it's valuable to FB when they're trying to convince
| shareholders that the platform isn't dying. They're
| specifically incentivized to ignore those accounts and let them
| persist.
| lupire wrote:
| lkrubner wrote:
| Every time I see an article about the advance of AI, with the
| vague sci-fi theme of "AI is now so good it is about to replace
| humans" I think of the many, many stories I've heard like
| yours, where the FAANG seem unable to build even basic
| statistical systems, nevermind AI. Some articles suggest AI is
| on the verge of human sentience, meanwhile, in real life, I
| constantly encounter stupid algorithms, even from big companies
| with lots of money. The advertising companies are the worst. I
| bought a guitar and then, for the next 6 months, every ad I saw
| on every site was about guitars. How many guitars do they
| really think I'm going to buy in one year? It's really a once-
| every-two-or-three-years purchase, it doesn't justify the
| saturation I was exposed to.
|
| Or elevators. I'm in New York City and everyday I go into some
| building that has a terrible algorithm for its elevators. I
| don't need advanced AI, my life would be improved with even
| minor tweaks to most algorithms for elevators.
| visarga wrote:
| Don't blame the algorithms, blame the people who decide
| policy. It's perfectly possible to find a ton of spammers in
| Google, FB and Twitter by manual and/or automated methods.
| Their continued existence shows they are tolerated.
| mulmen wrote:
| It's actually very simple. In the era of big data nobody
| looks at opportunity cost because you can't put a KPI on it.
| tjpnz wrote:
| Don't forget about Facebook Marketplace. It's absolutely rife
| with scammers and other assorted criminals.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| They probably have to have a higher threshold to ban people
| on a thing like marketplace. It's very hard to sell anything
| without someone complaining sometimes. Sometimes the
| complainers are scammers.
|
| And maybe they make money from it, so they don't want to kill
| the goose. I would also guess that heavy FB users are a
| terrific concentration of suckers.
| coryrc wrote:
| My friend keeps getting his posts banned for selling
| firearms.
|
| Like the Apple Mac tower and a generator... very dangerous
| weapons.
| numpad0 wrote:
| One thing I don't get about Facebook's Metaverse push is that
| Metaverse is just an alternative name for VR, and V stands for
| virtual.
|
| If you're going to disallow disconnection between meatspace and
| VR, there's nothing virtual left in it.
| conradfr wrote:
| Is there any hope besides the EU regulating bans by Big Tech?
| TrevorFSmith wrote:
| If this headline bothers you then go help the open immersive web
| become the actual metaverse.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| The aptly named Matrix might end up being the perfect OSS
| Metaverse. It will require people to actually bother to build
| it though. Identity is going to be key and we should accept no
| substitute for the federated variety. So, matrix has that and
| the brand. And conveniently, Facebook has nothing else than a
| vague idea of what they think they might need to build, which
| is basically Whatsapp and Instagram but with AR goggles, in
| their narrow minded heads. Which, is they same as saying that
| they have no clue whatsoever. That's good news! Whatever, it's
| going to be, it's not going to be theirs to own in perpetuity.
|
| Matrix is for now one of the few actually federated things (in
| addition to email) that still has a chance of not failing. As
| such it's a good basis for people to build a Metaverse on top
| of. Of course it is going to require people actually showing up
| and doing that. Email completely destroyed it's competitors by
| virtue of "you can email everyone instead of just the morons
| that bought the exact same shit that you bought". Thirty years
| on, nothing has changed. Whatever it's going to be, Zuck's
| ffing walled garden ain't it.
|
| Neal Stephenson has been repeatedly answering the question what
| he thinks about the whole Meta thing as part of his recent book
| tour for Termination Shock. He'd be the person that coined the
| whole notion of the Metaverse in Snowcrash in the early 90's.
|
| He does not seem very impressed with this effort by Facebook
| and nor did Facebook bother to even talk to him about their
| plans. I think that is probably a tactical mistake by Facebook
| and it kind of outlines how desperate they are.
| albybisy wrote:
| I'm banned from Instagram and i can't create new accounts because
| they banned my phone number. So if i want an instagram account i
| have to buy another number. No way. I can still live without
| instagram, but this is the way Facebook inc/Meta do business. For
| me Meta/Facebook/Instagram/WhatApp have to die!
| aidog wrote:
| Nevermind FB. We miss you on twitter man.
| gtsop wrote:
| Wish you get a lift of the ban. Meanwhile, I can't wait to see
| another episode of "vip complains online about bigtech ban and an
| insider helps him out while the rest of the plebs struggle with
| their permabans"
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| Classic "honest mistake"(tm). Followed by people calling for
| immediate cease of any critique since "they are very sorry and
| corrected the error".
|
| In all seriousness though: It's time to find some name for this
| behaviour where the only chance for support or help is being a
| VIP or making the news headlines somehow.
| pmontra wrote:
| Plebanning? The act of banning a John Doe that will never
| have the connections to revert the ban.
|
| "I'm a VIP, you can't pleban me."
|
| Any other term more fun and memorable?
| bryan0 wrote:
| How about _frontpaged_?
|
| "Zuck permabanned me but I _frontpaged_ to get back my
| account"
| a9h74j wrote:
| ... and it turned out it was just an oops-ban. (?)
| romwell wrote:
| _Oopsieban_ instead of _permaban_ , I'm loving it.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Folks, you're on fire :+1:
| sshine wrote:
| I've made sure to delete or render inactive _all_ social media
| accounts. Yes, even GitHub. And you know what? Life continues.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Yes, even GitHub
|
| Maybe it's just me, but I never got the hang of the social
| network part of GitHub. Sure, I interact with issues related to
| work and I star repos that I might need later, but I never used
| the feed or had some discussions on it which are not work
| related.
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| It's not just you. I always thought this statement ("github
| is a social media platform") to be a bit of a meme. I've
| never had any interactions like that, nor have seen anyone
| else do it. Some users prefer to make their profile a
| bulletin board of their "achievements" (real achievements
| speak for themselves without glitz or unicorn symbols), or
| use it as something of a PR platform. You can easily avoid
| those types. (For example, these was a pretty funny LGTM from
| some random guy on the recent multicore OCaml pull request in
| like 5-10 minutes since it was posted. The PR in question is
| a giant and very complicated patchset that was in the works
| for about a decade, I think?)
| 3np wrote:
| I always took it as that interacting with each others'
| repos, issues, and PRs effectively makes it a social
| network. It's just a different kind of dynamic than we see
| in other kinds of SNS.
| benmarks wrote:
| Are forums like HN not also a social medium?
| VLM wrote:
| At some point drift in language will change the definition of
| "social media" from the former definition of trying to profit
| off users self-generated content, to the modern "in practice"
| definition of a for-profit heavily politically censored
| propaganda channel.
|
| So, no, under the old def HN was never about becoming
| trillionaires by selling our accts to google or whatever. And
| under the new definition HN has intense political leanings
| but is still primarily technical in nature and doesn't censor
| as much as Reddit or other fundamentalist or inquisition like
| as sites.
| kibwen wrote:
| We should not pretend that message boards are not subject to
| many of the same pitfalls as more conventional social media.
| At the same time, we should not be so overbroad as to lump
| message boards and social media into the same category.
|
| On a message board, 1) I don't have a profile that's rich
| with personal information, 2) I don't have a dedicated wall
| for my musings, 3) I don't have an individually-curated
| timeline, and 4) I don't have first-class social connections
| embedded in the platform.
|
| Point 1 means that there is much less ability to identify me
| for the purposes of advertising, which avoids much of the
| perverse incentive that comes with monetizing social media
| users.
|
| Point 2 means that I have much less personal attachment to
| this place as an outlet for creative self-expression, which
| helps to defuse both a sense of toxic entitlement that I
| might feel on behalf of the platform providers, as well as
| the sunk-cost fallacy that might keep me active here even if
| I no longer experienced pleasure from being here.
|
| Point 3 keeps filter bubbles from fractally proliferating;
| there is still one bubble, but it's the bubble that everyone
| else on the platform inhabits.
|
| Point 4 provides a mixture of all of the above benefits.
|
| Again, this isn't to say that message boards are perfect or
| that social media must be inherently bad, but IMO the
| differences are important.
| threatofrain wrote:
| > we should not be so overbroad as to lump message boards
| and social media into the same category
|
| The details you list seem incidental to the social media of
| today. Reddit fits much of what you say but most people
| would classify Reddit as _clearly_ social media even though
| Reddit is closer to HN than FB by this divvying of
| conceptual boundaries. Perhaps the social media of tomorrow
| involves no wall and meetings in Oculus land. Then we would
| be talking about how social media is psychologically or
| socially problematic because of 3D immersion.
|
| IMO the easiest bright line between social media and
| "something else" media is that social media is populated
| with content by amateurs or indie producers. If FB became
| 100% business then it would lose its credentials as
| "social" media and simply become "traditional" media,
| notwithstanding any timeline, wall, bubble or heuristic
| curation. If YouTube became all professionals then it would
| just become HBO, regardless of whether there are
| subscriptions, notifications, or channels.
| root_axis wrote:
| I don't agree that reddit is a social media site as it is
| typically understood. What is your reasoning to suggest
| it's "clearly" social media?
| [deleted]
| kibwen wrote:
| In recent history Reddit has added things like profiles
| and walls in an attempt to pivot towards conventional
| social media, which serves to illustrate the difference.
| I'm not saying the line is perfectly clear, but I am
| saying that using "social media" to encompass both
| Facebook and HN dilutes the phrase beyond the point of
| meaning. Different platforms have different advantages
| and disadvantages, and after a certain point labels cease
| to have descriptive power if they get applied
| overbroadly. We should focus on precise features of each
| platform rather than get bogged down in the usual "is
| social media bad" -> "is this platform social media" ->
| "is this platform bad by the transitive property".
|
| As for the "indie producer" aspect, that's certainly one
| useful property to consider, but I don't think it's
| sufficient since pre-internet we had things like 'zine
| culture which were the bastion of indies, and I would
| find it a stretch to call zines a form of social media,
| rather than just indie media.
| [deleted]
| chongli wrote:
| This has been discussed a few times here on hacker news. The
| argument I prefer (that I can't find anymore, sorry) is that
| hacker news is different from social media because it gives
| every user the same feed. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc
| give each user a custom feed based on perceived preferences.
| This has been argued to lead to users being isolated within
| their own echo chambers. Hacker news seems to suffer less
| from that problem because it continually exposes users to new
| topics and points of view they might not have sought out.
| krapp wrote:
| If Twitter and Facebook were exactly the same, minus the
| algorithmic feeds, would they no longer be social media?
|
| If not, what would they be?
| indigochill wrote:
| HN is a specialty forum. Facebook in some cases is where
| everyday life is negotiated. In Iceland, for instance, all
| the unofficial rent/"garage sale" sort of economy lives on
| Facebook as far as I'm aware. It's not quite WeChat levels
| (you could still rent through official channels and buy stuff
| from retailers instead of other individuals), but it's
| uncomfortably close.
|
| Like HN bans, Facebook/Google bans wouldn't really be too
| much of a problem if they weren't _the_ platform in their
| respective domains. As much as I advocate for alternative
| platforms like Mastodon and PeerTube, them being a viable
| alternative is a future I hope to see, not the present
| reality.
| kerneloftruth wrote:
| HN is like a party in a big room, where there are clusters of
| people having conversations. People mingle between the
| groups, dipping into and out of the conversations. There are
| no "connections" between people, and the site (thank God)
| doesn't "suggest" or promote anything to you based on some
| algorithmic analysis of your past expressions.
|
| So long as the site acts only as the big room in which the
| party happens, it's benign. Once the room becomes an active
| participant and manipulator it becomes what is now a modern
| "social networking" site, and should be regarded as poison.
| At that point, leave for your own sake.
| krapp wrote:
| > Once the room becomes an active participant and
| manipulator it becomes what is now a modern "social
| networking" site, and should be regarded as poison.
|
| Hacker News is one of the most aggressively moderated
| forums you'll ever come across, the room is very much an
| active participant and always has been.
|
| And the entire purpose of the karma system (particularly
| the censorship of downvoted items) is to suggest and
| promote some content over others. That HN doesn't use
| machine learning is just a quibble about complexity.
| kerneloftruth wrote:
| You're right -- I failed to mention the indeed biased
| bouncers. There was a real purge it seems, in fact, over
| the past few months, as a lot of names are now silent;
| and, the tone is now much more 'consistent' (echo
| chamber-ish).
|
| Flagging/purging content is to me more acceptable than
| manipulation via suggesting/promoting, though, especially
| if the moderators are members. Maybe making this
| distinction is hair-splitting, though.
|
| Shadow banning, on the other hand, is a disgusting
| technique. That seems like more a childish prank than a
| means of moderation, and only invites negativity (which
| is what was trying to be avoided, right?).
|
| Overall, it's a pretty reliable source of links to good
| articles -- and some discussions.
| root_axis wrote:
| Shadow banning is a very useful tool for moderation. It
| is extremely frustrating as a moderator dealing with
| users that persistently shit up the place and crank out
| new accounts to continue the abuse as soon as you ban
| them. Shadowbans greatly relieve the moderation workload
| in cases like this because the abusive users keep
| themselves occupied, potentially for weeks. As someone
| who has previously moderated a large phpbb, I don't lose
| any sleep over wasting the time of abusive users since
| they are happy to waste my time as a moderator by
| deliberately and repeatedly breaking the rules.
| drunkpotato wrote:
| Now that you mention it, things have been more pleasant
| recently!
| kriberg wrote:
| I never really thought about it, but your description made
| me fear some well-meaning persons will "revamp" HN and turn
| it into something "fresh and modern" and introduce new
| features that allow us to "engage".
| varelse wrote:
| And that's why you probably should have had a separate account
| for running your business. I don't use Facebook for anything
| except some of the groups that remain there and which are
| relevant to my hobbies. Strong opinions get you suspended because
| there will always be someone offended by what you say.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| I think business accounts have to be linked with personal
| accounts, and Facebook requires users to use their legal name.
| They also do phone verification for signups now so it's not
| trivial to get around their requirements
| lofties wrote:
| You're 100% right. A few years back you could sign up for
| business accounts which were seperate from your personal
| identity, but 2 or 3 years back this practice was cancelled
| and you had to start linking your business account to your
| personal account.
|
| Also having two facebook accounts is not allowed by their
| TOS. That's the first thing our partner manager asked me: "do
| you have multiple accounts by any chance? That often gets
| people banned".
| mwattsun wrote:
| I bought an Oculus headset before it required a Facebook login. I
| haven't used it since that requirement was added. The metaverse I
| envisioned comes from William Gibson and Neal Stephenson, not a
| sanitized and sexless universe where Code of Conducts written by
| Home Owners Associations are strictly enforced and LinkedIn type
| interactions are the norm. Bill Gates recently said all business
| meetings would be on it in three years. I don't like to criticize
| people personally, but billionaires have so much power I think
| it's ok: Bill G is not exactly a tech visionary, famously having
| to rewrite his book "The Road Ahead" because he missed the
| internet happening. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg loves it because his
| personality already seems blank and smoothed over like an avatar.
| Do I want to live inside a sappy television commercial where Coke
| teaches the world to sing and everyone smiles and expresses only
| approved virtuous thoughts? Nope.
| mindcrash wrote:
| > I bought an Oculus headset before it required a Facebook
| login. I haven't used it since that requirement was added.
|
| They recently reversed this decision. Facebook is no longer
| required, and your Oculus account is your primary way to sign
| in again.
| rvz wrote:
| Sorry for your banishment. Now you're a lifetime member of the
| lost and banned.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Being FB free, forever, is to be celebrated.
| [deleted]
| lil_dispaches wrote:
| Calling facebook "meta" is the ultimate in marketing people their
| own conceptual understanding of things back to them. Truly FB is
| trying to ZUCK the internet. This meme takeover is the worst
| part, speaking as a mostly non-user of FACEBOOK products.
|
| I dreamed of a OS filter that lets you turn "meta" back to
| "facebook" where appropriate. We can't bring AI to the OS fast
| enough.
| account-5 wrote:
| This is one of the reasons I don't have any FB (or FB owned)
| account. You're at their mercy, with all your eggs in their
| basket you have to hope they don't decide you're not allowed your
| eggs.
|
| It's not the only reason. Not even at the top on my list for
| reasons. But if there is going to be a metaverse, Facebook cannot
| be the gatekeeper, or any other US tech company that randomly and
| for no given reason permabans you _cough_ Google.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I don't understand Facebook bans. A lot of people I know have
| multiple Facebook accounts. Why don't you just create another
| account?
| lofties wrote:
| I've done and created a second account, which was reduced to a
| limited account the minute I linked my secondary phone number.
| Probably used that number on my old account already, so they
| were quick to strike it down.
|
| I could not link a phone, but I need to link my phone number if
| I want to get access to more advanced functionality such as
| running ads, pages, et cetera.
|
| Surely there are a thousand other ways I could sign up again --
| but to be honest I don't want to jump through those hoops. I
| just want my account back. And since that isn't happening, I
| hope my tale serves as a warning for people never to rely on
| Facebook as they can take your access away if their bots think
| you're suspicious.
| yosito wrote:
| Seems like going to the local corner store and picking up a
| prepaid SIM is an easy enough solution.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| You give Facebook your phone number? Why? Is this a new
| requirement for an account?
| frabcus wrote:
| In my experience, yes.
|
| Also a few weeks into using an account I made for testing a
| product that uses their signin system, it asked me to scan
| in and upload my passport.
|
| Luckily it wasn't a core part of my job so I just gave up
| having any kind of Facebook account.
|
| They really care that you have exactly one account in your
| real name.
| chris_wot wrote:
| If you screw up your personal details, you won't be able
| to get back in. No matter how you try.
|
| It's one of the best things that can happen to you, to be
| honest. Facebook is a cancer on society.
| joeman1000 wrote:
| I was unfairly (and unprofessionally) pressured into using fb for
| a group project chat at uni this year. I tried to create an
| account about 5 times but was completely unable. Each time I
| logged in or created an account, I was shown to have 'violated
| community standards' and promptly kicked off. This was on brand-
| spanking-new accounts. I must have really pissed someone off at
| fb over the years.
| InGoodFaith wrote:
| By any chance did you have an initial picture without your
| face?
|
| Over recent years Facebook has been clamping down with those
| same sort of messages (sometimes it will appear after a few
| days or weeks for people I know) and for better or worse the
| main fix was having a picture with a face on a brand new
| account.
|
| Older accounts don't have this problem though.
|
| It's a similar tactic to how in recent years twitter lets you
| sign up without a mobile number but after some time you will
| suspiciously get your account locked until you "verify" with a
| mobile number.
| superkuh wrote:
| Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This person chose to get
| into a business run entirely on someone else's property and now
| they're paying the price for that bad decision. They lampshade
| this in the first couple paragraphs but that doesn't change the
| relevance.
| slightwinder wrote:
| Let's see whether this will remain legal. It seems EU has some
| laws impacting these cases, according to rumors. There recently
| was a case of someone who went to court and successfully revoked
| his lifetime-ban on a certain platform. This was for a business-
| account and nothing is really public yet regarding the case and
| laws involved. So I'm not entirely sure whether it was settled
| outside of court at the end or whether a law forced the judgment.
| But this case gives me some hope that we do move in the direction
| where we limit the power of platforms in favor of the customers.
| kafkaIncarnate wrote:
| I found out recently that I'm "pre-banned" from Facebook. I don't
| know why, nor do I care. I stayed off of Facebook for a long
| time, because I figured it was a stupid idea. In a moment of
| drunk weakness I decided to sign up because I was bored and
| curious (~2019?).
|
| Nope, not allowed to sign up. No idea why, no reason given. The
| email address and my real life identity is never used in any
| offensive way (or really in any way at all). I don't have some
| weird name that sounds offensive either.
|
| They didn't offer any way to remedy, no way to contact, no way to
| do anything about it. I just said screw it, I probably shouldn't
| be on there anyway.
|
| Yet what I know about it and what I've seen of it, people I've
| known are perfectly acceptable posting hate speech, violent
| threats, spreading misinformation about people for lulz
| deliberately, etc.
|
| Why is this company not considered the same as 8chan? I don't
| really care if it exists, just why culturally is it considered
| some sort of bastion of existence and 8chan is demonized when I
| see them as equals?
| robg wrote:
| Maybe my age (finished grad school in 2004) but I never created a
| Facebook account. Seemed like a waste of time and energy. And
| now? I'd gladly buy an Occulus but nope, need a Facebook account.
| Seems like a horrid company and where the cigarettes analogy
| seems apt and I used to smoke Marlboros as a kid. A lot of kids
| are now addicted to a product that actively harms them, Instaspam
| especially. Frankly love that FB makes it so hard to read stuff
| posted. Every time I'm linked to something there and it requires
| an account, I nope right out. I've banned Facebook from my life.
| Highly recommend not what you've lost, but what you'll find
| instead.
| [deleted]
| doopy1 wrote:
| I think they're removing the requirement to have an oculus
| tethered to an fb account if they haven't done so already.
| throwanem wrote:
| No, it's the other way around. You can already no longer
| create a non-Facebook Oculus account, and some time next year
| they'll require Oculus accounts be "upgraded" to Facebook in
| order to use the devices at all.
| skylanh wrote:
| This is a similar issue I have with Twitter.
|
| Direct link to the material--I can see it, if I'm trying to
| find additional material, nope.
|
| The negative patterns are too bold.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > too bold
|
| Well, they work as long as the company is powerful. And push
| people away as soon as the power reduces.
|
| It's one of those policies that provide metastability, but
| increase the rate of change once the stability is lost.
| Powerful people normally like them, as they care much less
| about rate of change than about conserving power.
| lvncelot wrote:
| I'm using Nitter redirect[1] for Firefox, so that any Twitter
| link automatically links me to the nitter.net frontend for
| that reason.
|
| [1]https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nitter-
| redire...
| dreen wrote:
| Tbf its hard to find specific things/tweets you're looking
| for on Twitter even if you do have an account.
|
| At least that's how it was until I stopped logging in about a
| year ago. But I can still access linked content. On mobile, I
| just have to paste the url into the browser address bar and
| it works.
| masklinn wrote:
| > But I can still access linked content.
|
| Yeah but it feels like navigating around gets weird if
| you're not logged, because any link from the direct-linked
| content (original tweet for RTs, comments, etc...) will
| navigate then immediately hide the information behind a big
| popup, and if you close that popup... it sends you back
| where you came from.
| kittywav wrote:
| It's a recent anti-pattern they added. Possible solution:
| replace the "twitter.com" portion of the URL by
| "nitter.net" and you won't be nagged by things like that.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| It's definitely a weird and (anonymous-)user-hostile
| design, but here's a trick: reloading the page instead of
| closing the popup does load the content without the
| popup. (Until you navigate to the next link, of course,
| after which you'll need another reload.)
| yborg wrote:
| Most Nitter instances end up rate-limited and are unusable
| at least half of the time in my experience, this isn't
| really a practical solution.
| tata71 wrote:
| Try a Nitter instance.
| webdoodle wrote:
| Same here. I just didn't get why I'd want to broadcast every
| shit I took, or everything I ate. Low on substance, high on
| drama.
|
| Fast forward to today, and we now know that Facebook and other
| social media are encouraging narcissistic behavior, because
| narcissists are easy to manipulate: They are highly likely to
| have multiple addictions, they are easy to emotionally provoke,
| have nearly no ability to moderate there own behavior, and they
| take any attack on there beliefs as a persona attack, and will
| hate there attacker forever, becoming flying monkeys.
|
| I highly encourage everyone to watch the documovie: The Social
| Dilemma.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| > Maybe my age (finished grad school in 2004) but I never
| created a Facebook account.
|
| Me neither. The "dumb fucks trusted me" vibe rubbed me the
| wrong way right out of the gate.
|
| Wish someone had stopped them grabbing Whatsapp, etc., deleted
| my account there too.
| exdsq wrote:
| Interestingly those born in 2004 don't necessarily have them
| either - my neighbour was born then and mentioned that their
| year group don't use FB at all.
| mattmanser wrote:
| You'll probably find they use Instagram instead, which is why
| they should never have been allowed to pruchase it.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| It seems like its mostly old people on Facebook now, at least
| that's my perception as a millennial who interacts with
| mostly other millennials
| Grakel wrote:
| Facebook is LinkedIn for families. Basically useless,
| mostly performative, but worth checking once a month just
| for connections.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Is it really worth it? I'm not sure what benefit people
| get out of either LinkedIn or Facebook. They seem like
| not only a time suck, but also a great way for presenting
| your personal information for people and corporations to
| harvest. Personally I value my privacy and data over
| whatever miniscule (if any) tangible benefit I would see
| from using such a service.
|
| This isn't even mentioning the rampant misinformation and
| divisive bullshit permeating the platforms (yes both of
| them)
| tetraca wrote:
| I use LinkedIn to passively trawl offers from recruiters
| and ask for references. Most offers aren't particularly
| good but a few random recruiting recruiting connections I
| made ended up being important. The data I give LinkedIn
| effectively matches my resume which I have to be
| comfortable to send to random people in the first place,
| so I'm not particularly worried about the data provided.
| I do not browse the feed or post anything publically. I
| only privately message people I'm connected with, or
| those who provided a job posting I was willing to apply
| to.
|
| The more socially competent you are, the less useful this
| probably is. Many people probably have some useful
| network of friends they built in college. I have little
| to draw on aside from a handful of people I worked with
| which I had professional rapport with which I never
| developed a personal connection. So thus, I am stuck on
| LinkedIn on the off chance I need a new job and a
| reference.
| leros wrote:
| I don't use Facebook either. Part of the problem is that other
| people treat it as if everyone is on Facebook.
|
| People will only invite you to events on Facebook. Restaurants
| will only post updates to Facebook. Businesses have support
| forums in Facebook groups. Etc.
|
| You do miss out on a portion of the internet by not being on
| Facebook. But I think that's because people rely too much on
| it.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| I keep a Facebook account for the sole reason that I don't
| want some derplganger with the same name causing me
| employment trouble in the future.
|
| It may sound like a dumb reason, but I have seen the pattern
| of some eponymous innocent suffering because lazy HR didn't
| verify waaaaaaay too many times to not take the threat
| seriously.
| dvtrn wrote:
| I go through this frequently and it's not even due to
| Facebook, it's just due to having a stupidly common western
| name.
|
| To the point of I have folders, digital and physical full
| of sworn statements I've had to make, and official court
| documents from six different states attesting "no the John
| Doe before you applying for this job is not the one who
| came up in your background check database for grand
| larceny, no he's not the one who came up for involuntary
| manslaughter either." and I'm always ready for that
| conversation later in the interview when I get an email
| from the recruiter/HR "hey, we have a question about
| something that came up in your background check"
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| This can cause a problem when dating as background checks
| become involved. Thankfully my SO realized it was a
| different person with the same name.
|
| Even at a small town library there was another patron
| with my name.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| I keep a (deactivated) Facebook account just to prevent
| Facebook leaking my acquaintances to any random with my
| name and email.
|
| That's right - in 2021, Facebook doesn't make you
| immediately verify your email when you sign up! They
| eventually close the account if you don't verify but by
| that point whoever signed up with your name and email
| already has access to parts of your shadow profile Facebook
| leaks (ex through 'suggested friends').
| jondwillis wrote:
| cool. i have some experimenting to do in my name now.
| itronitron wrote:
| You would need to have a very unique name for that to be
| necessary and you are also putting a lot of confidence in
| HR's ability to disambiguate the profiles if you indeed
| have a doppelganger.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| On the contrary, I have an exceedingly common name, which
| is why I need to have my own account to point to, as
| compared to the other several dozen same-name folks who
| have the potential to cause me trouble. There's no
| trusting HR here, it's a matter of being ready up front.
| ipaddr wrote:
| You realize by making an account and adding a picture you
| greatly increase the chance someone will clone your profile
| vs someone creating a profile with photos they have sourced
| from somewhere else. If the latter happens it is probably
| from your friend group.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Who said I had a picture of myself? I can post something
| proving it's me as necessary, which is what I use it for.
| Zero personal pictures, though.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Just keep the profile private and limit friends on FB. I
| try to keep the number of FB friends at Dunbars number.
| itronitron wrote:
| >> You do miss out...
|
| I'm not confident that is true in any meaningful sense as it
| seems to align too nicely with what Facebook would like
| people to think.
| npteljes wrote:
| There's lots of info on FB, behind soft walls. Lots of
| businesses don't have homepages, for example. Or people
| organize their events there. And the general network effect
| - by its nature, you miss out of everything that happens
| there.
| oezi wrote:
| I haven't stumbled on anything in the last 10 years that
| would even tempt me to go back on FB/Insta.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| I have a fb purely for tracking local events & with none of
| my friends attached to it. It makes a difference
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| And Reels, the TikTok competitor. TikTok is even worse than
| Facebook.
| frank_nitti wrote:
| Is Tiktok worse than FB because of the way the platform is
| designed, or because of the way people are using it (trends
| etc), or something I'm not seeing?
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| I would say TikTok is even more addictive than Facebook,
| considering its larger market share at this moment.
|
| TikTok is a maximizer of wasted attention.
| ok123456 wrote:
| Tiktok actually shows you content you'd like to see. So in
| that sense it's "addictive." It shows me weird local
| commercials, retro computing stuff, and clips from old
| industrial films.
|
| 'Reels' is a lot worse. It shows you generic stuff that's
| slightly personalized by things you "liked" over a decade
| ago. No reason to use it.
| Nbox9 wrote:
| From my perspective TikTok is worse because it's algorithm
| is better at holding human addition, and it's headquarters
| is located in an authoritative country. I don't have any
| evidence to defend these statements, and it's quite
| possible propaganda has influenced by opinion here. I'd
| love to hear from the experts.
| Mezzie wrote:
| It's interesting because they're both bad but in
| different ways. Facebook's addictive nature is in
| interacting with other people: FB wants you to start
| flame wars in the comments, share things around with
| people, etc. FB tries to connect you with other people to
| hate them. Facebook distorts a person's idea of OTHER
| PEOPLE. Facebook is like meeting the Duggers and assuming
| they're representative of all Americans. Facebook makes
| people angry and aggressive.
|
| TT's addictive nature is more insidious because it's more
| internal: Humans are pattern-matching machines and TikTok
| will show you a LOT of very niche content to the point
| where your brain thinks it's important and true (think
| TV/movie product placement; they wouldn't do it if it
| didn't work). Because of TT's form, it's harder for the
| average person (non-creator) to be drawn into a social
| group, but it's easier for them to be firehosed into
| accepting false narratives through sheer repetition. TT
| distorts a person's idea of HOW PEOPLE LIVE; imagine if
| your main idea of how Americans live was USSR propaganda.
| TT makes people apathetic and prone to hug-boxes.
|
| They're both taking advantage of the fight-or-flight
| mechanism, FB just wants you to fight and TT wants you to
| 'flee' (into its loving escapist arms, of course).
|
| There are healthy use cases for both FB and TT (and even
| Twitter), but they're directly at odds with the
| incentives of the platforms themselves + we have a
| society full of unhealthy and traumatized people, so
| instead you get these evil clone versions.
|
| I'd also say that both the US and China are authoritarian
| countries. China more so, but the mental health/addictive
| problems with TT are inherent to its design and medium
| decisions, not which nationality made it.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| It's algo is actually showing me what I'm interested at
| not some reddit-tier meaningless political fighting.
| Despite headquartered in authoritative country I'm the
| user experience is better with less drama. Go figure.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| TikTok seems like a more casual/fun experience to me. I
| suppose it depends on how you use it. My son and I have a
| great time watching animal videos, jokes and some other
| stuff.
|
| I never got into instagram, but Facebook is always trying
| to lure me in with suggestive "interviews" of college girls
| and weird mom videos on the Facebook feed, which is
| otherwise very curated.
| tchalla wrote:
| > I'd gladly buy an Occulus but nope, need a Facebook account
|
| Facebook says that Oculus won't require a Facebook sign in
| anymore.
|
| https://www.facebook.com/boz/posts/10114026973983491
| bla3 wrote:
| "landing some time next year"
| Gunax wrote:
| I am thinking FB doesn't care about us if we don't have a FB
| account.
|
| We are not contributing to the metaverse, why would they? The
| value of selling a handful of games for approximately $100 of
| revenue is peanuts compared to their metaverse idea.
|
| Given that FB probably loses money on each quest sold, I
| think it's likely they are happy every time one of us grumpy
| loners declines to purchase their device
| exdsq wrote:
| I bought an Occulus Quest 2 last week and had to sign in with
| Facebook
| mycall wrote:
| You can bypass Facebook if you want to jump through some
| hoops.
|
| https://uploadvr.com/how-to-play-pc-vr-oculus-quest-2/
| syntheticnature wrote:
| It sounds like "they're working on it", which is only a
| promise at best.
| anonymousab wrote:
| It ain't much different if it ends up requiring a 'meta'
| account instead.
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| Precisely. Sort of like someone telling you they've given
| up cigarettes, then lighting up a cigar...
| rrdharan wrote:
| Where in that statement are you getting that interpretation?
| Is it buried in the comments or something?
|
| I just read and reread the Boz words and don't see how any of
| it translates into "no Meta (Facebook) account needed"?
| syntheticnature wrote:
| About two-thirds of the way down I see "we're working on
| new ways to log into Quest that won't require a Facebook
| account" -- which, of course, makes no promises that it
| will see the light of day.
|
| (Would've bought an Oculus by now if it wasn't for that
| requirement.)
| cloogshicer wrote:
| Until they backpaddle on it again.
|
| When they bought Oculus they made a definitive statement
| saying that Oculus devices will never need an FB account to
| use.
|
| To me they lost all credibility. Not just because of this
| instance but many other instances of lying and deceit.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| You can create an account that has none of your personal
| information. I understand why people don't have an FB account.
| I don't, and I use an Oculus . But the downside of having an FB
| account is they plant cookies on your browser or track you in
| their app.
|
| If you are only using the FB account on your Oculus, its an
| Oculus account that calls itself an FB account. You need an
| account for most game devices these days and for Steam. I am
| not saying its perfect, I am saying that not using an Oculus
| because you are off FB doesn't make that much sense to me. I do
| exactly that.
| ThalesX wrote:
| One thing I can think of that might complicate this is that
| Facebook has a policy of not allowing nicknames if I
| understand correctly. Which is why they can also verify you
| with national ID and others if something happens (and it
| does).
|
| How would I remain as anonymous as I am on Steam for the
| community and still work within Facebook's terms of service?
| icedchai wrote:
| I know plenty of people with nicknames (generally, fake
| last names) on Facebook. They just have to "look" real.
| Perhaps use your middle name as your last name.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I did that back when I had an account about a decade ago,
| and some do gooder got into an argument with me, didn't
| like my opinion and reported my account. It got locked
| and they asked for a government issued ID. Fuck that. I
| never went to the site again. Good riddance.
| warning26 wrote:
| _> You can create an account that has none of your personal
| information_
|
| Facebook pretends this is the case, but they use some dirty
| tricks to require personal information without explicitly
| requiring it.
|
| In particular, if you create an account without a phone
| number, you'll find that within a day or two your account
| will inevitably be flagged for "suspicious" behavior, and
| you'll be required to enable two-factor-authentication with a
| valid phone number. (I assume the "suspicious" behavior here
| is your account existing without a phone number.)
| nickdothutton wrote:
| In the early 90s I ran a BBS and was a USENET user and
| administrator (ISP) for years. The SnR of major social media
| platforms is so poor now. I find it hard to even explain to the
| young how much better such forums can be.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| How can I get banned? This sounds great!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-24 23:01 UTC)