While all major browsers have 'Do not track" modes which serve to prevent long term tracking by cleaning up cookie files left behind, few if any proactively block tracking while on a website. And other trackers like verizon's "super cookies" and facebook's tracker dot are completely unaffected by such moves.
The issue is that a cookie, in the end is a file. And web browsing is entirely about requesting files without being able to KNOW what those files are before you get them. That's why a lot of web safety is focused on preventing the running of arbitrary code and autoplay Flash and javascript widgets are security risks (on top of being annoying). Incognito modes delete leftover files, including tracking cookies. But preventing the file from existing in the first place is not actually a function of incognito mode, and websites are not required to adhere to a do not track flag.
There are a number of strawmen in your arguments. But let us focus on this
Legal arguments are not ethical/moral arguments. Discussing that WeChat legally can ban people for whatever reason does not preclude discussing if WeChat should. The specific criticism at play is that WeChat claims to not be enforcing Chinese legal standards on international WeChat that they do on the more isolated local Chinese sub network, but that those claims appear to be false.
Techdirt has repeatedly argued that congress should not be in the game of determining or dictating Moderation decisions. The first article certainly implicates that standard, and Techdirt and the commentors have criticized the efforts to dictate moderation by the US.
However, I would love to know the search you made, so I can look at those articles. Because if I remember correctly, the second headline (or a similar purge) happened first, partly in response to the massive public outcry implicating Facebook's business interests. It wasn't about Facebook being loyal to the US or acting at the direction of the government (at least not entirely). The entire saga between Facebook and The government has been pretty publicly antagonistic in fact.
Facebook had the legal right and i think was ethically in the right. I do not like that Congress has been in the middle of it. But if pressed, I would highlight that WeWork banned individuals expressing uncoordinated individual opinions, while the Russian IRA accounts were spreading intentional disinformation in a complex and organized fashion that made it difficult to combat in the marketplace of ideas and impossible to address via the judiciary, providing a stronger ethical bulwark for their removal as a matter of policy.
False Equivelances and strawmen arguements that come up once a week do not make for robust debate
Not at scale? Certainly not this one tweet in isolation. But the commentary of moderation at scale describes moderation efforts for an entire ecosystem. The entirety of a forum, of Facebook, of Twitter. The whole point is that, at the scale of a major website, issues emerge overall. For instance, in the case of 100 reported tweets a day, 9-10 like minded people could take a half hour, time research, contextualize, and make a call based on complex rules on every tweet that is reported (with each person only pulling 40 hours a week). At 99.9% moderation success rate, you have maybe 1 bad call a week.
Twitter has 500 million tweets per day and if we assume only 0.1% tweets are reported and need to be viewed by a moderator, that is 500,000 tweets that need to be addressed every day. Under the same half hour analysis, 40 hours a week, you would need 44,000 moderators, who will be a diverse group who will not have like minded values (this introduces error due to differing values). but if somehow we still have 99.9% accurate to the rules moderation, we still would see 500 errors EVERY DAY. This level of perfection in adhering to the rules is near impossible, and we could see 5000 errors a day (99% accuracy) without any stretch of the imagination.
If you look at the individual tweets, every mistake is obvious. But you aren't looking at the moderation efforts at scale. The individual rulings based on content, rules, and value judgments are not made in isolation. Discussions about moderation at scale are all about the aggregated effect of Millions of tweets, and millions of different points of view, and the impossibility of making everyone happy. Its not hard to understand, but given you consider systemic abuse of copyright simply a series of isolated anomalies that are unrelated to the failing of copyright, your confusion is incredibly on brand.
Nice find. I would note to the OAC that the ruling in question involved a German domain registar, and so was subject to the jurisdiction of the German court, which is likely why EasyDNS highlighted that they are not a German compnay.
USPS has a number of issues not faced by normal businesses. They are largely unable to adapt pricing to the costs faced by high COL areas like the bay area, they have to raise prices nationwide which disincentivizes personal use. They can't fraudulently declare mail carriers independent contractors to keep costs low like UPS, Fedex, and Amazon. They are legally required to over fund their pension benefits. They took a long time to adapt to the package handling boom caused by online shopping, and are held to stricter standards for mail carriers than package carriers have for independent contractors making rapid expansion difficult.
And yet, they are profitable, and still have booming operations in the business market.
Forgot to add, if all you want is New Star Wars content and have no interest in Marvel content or Pixar content or Disney content or the family friendly selection of FOX TV and Movie content.....I don't think Netflix would have ever had enough content for you either.
But... I don't think Disney is going to be as successful on their own as you imply. For the same reason Netflix isn't a very attractive option Disney will also suffer. They do own some high profile titles but fans of one or another of those titles aren't going to pay Disney month after month for occasionally interesting content. A Star Wars fan isn't all that likely to be interested in the next Frozen release. There may be some overlap with Marvel but, unless they really crank up the machine, those won't release often enough to keep many subscribers.
The model is different. Disney+ seems to be effectively a curated selection of content focusing on big names and family friendly content. If you are just a Star wars fan, sure you won't want disney+. on the other hand, if you are a parent? you'll want it. Its almost a one stop shop for family content. And every few years, a whole new crop of kids comes around. This means that Disney+ can be viewed more like a refinement of the principles behind the disney animation vault of old. Focus on having Disney+ be something you get when you are a parent, and by the time you no longer need it, the next parent takes your place.
It was cost effective for HBO. like any free trial, some percentage of viewers did not retain a subscription. But that trial, and Game of Thrones, brought in enough viewers who then either continued to pay and/or found other content they also wanted to watch. That's why HBO boomed financially, and yes after GoT ended they lost subscribers. But HBO was super profitable during the GoT period, and seem to have retained some subscribers post GoT, so questions of cost effectiveness are misplaced. Id say the y positioned themselves well for the streaming transition, but the new CEO seems to be taking the scattershot content approach that failed netflix instead of the quality content I feel justifies the subscription, so their fall will come from the new management, not the failure to capitalize every dollar during the GoT years.
I think its important to note what is happening in the industry as a whole - Netflix is losing the biggest sources of Major studio titles it had left. I was struck by how seemingly 2 years into the Netflix exclusivity contract Disney announced it would stop using netflix and make its own service, a service which currently has a number of titles unavailible because the netflix contract still applies to recent releases. It has left netflix beholden to exclusives, but those probably aren't holding subscribers at the level they used to with the shallower content pool.
Netflix is clearly entering the "we are losing subscribers" realm, having missed new subscriber estimates my several million in Q2 2019. This isn't the first time they cracked down on "password sharing", they implemented clear simultaneous stream limits in 2012, with customers paying more for more simultaneous streams. This served to stop some password sharing as paying for your friend to freeload is a much different prospect. But any attempt to try to enforce some sort of 'household' verification risks losing subscribers (or accelerating subscriber loss), an issue Netflix itself was expressing in 2015 when it talked about why it didn't care about subscriber losses.
Netflix's downfall is in the end the juggernaut that is Disney. Netflix boomed after Disney made Netflix the streaming destination for marvel films, and the Marvel Netflix originals were generally well received. I in fact have cited the coup of Netflix getting Disney as a reason it would survive the market fragmentation. But Netflix's shotgun approach to original content, combined with high profile cancellations of show with fan and critical acclaim that make Fox's primetime failures seem quaint, have not served to hook the consumer on Netflix as a studio, and Disney almost immediately decided it would make more money on its own. The crackdown is a symptom of market fragmentation, and a symptom of Disney's dominance.
>Sondland has right now dealt democracy its heaviest blow likely for decades to come: he has told a story about open corruption not just concerning Trump but also Pence. This makes it impossible for Republicans in the Senate to convict Trump since any conviction would equally affect Pence, and the third in command is Nancy Pelosi, clearly not a Republican.
Not so. If they convict Trump, the argument could then be made that while pence was aware of the crime, and may have contributed to it, his actions did not rise to the corrupt action necessary for impeachment. Its the argument Republicans should have been arguing from the beginning. We don't need to further impeach Pence, unless I missed the part where Sondland confessed Pence was VP Agnew 2.0. Impeach Trump, and maintain oversight, but don't start impeachment against Pence. Impeaching Pence would be using Impeachment as a political tool.
Issues of the president speaking to half the populace predate trump, and will continue with our without impeachment.
The original pedo guy comment was likely protected opinion, but Musk later stated that he had evidence gathered by a PI that the British Ex-pat met and married a 12 year old girl in Thailand, a false statement of fact. The PI actually reported his wife was 18 when they met and married, and his wife argues she was even older. The later statement has the strongest case, as Musk seemed to be clearly arguing facts at that point, not merely opinion based on prejudices
Ah, no. The accusation is the security expert on Ukraine occasionally spoke in Ukrainian with the Ukrainians instead of English and therefore he was committing treason.
Pressman also works for the government, which may avoid the rules you are referencing. Or, Pressman may be operating on contingency, which would not be a "gift". Finally, I do not believe the rules on emoluments would apply in this case given Vindman's position in the government.
If it was a concern though, id have imagined the republicans would have brought it up instead of trying to kill shot him on being offered a job.
Generally it isn’t. But that also means that if a Black Lives Matter member can be badgered out of their home just as legally.
The reason to ask the question it can is to have the person explain the legal theory being presented. Confirming Green AC's skepticism over the claim that Doxxing could be considered "fair-housing violation or interference with a rental contract" doesn't move that discussion forward - and your commentary on BLM suggests an assumption that Green AC would assume that somehow a supporter of BLM (do they actually have a 'membership'? I didn't think they were an organization, but a movement) wouldn't be suseptible to issues of Doxxing, which is most definitely not in evidence.
Combined those 2 factors suggest a subtle but hostile troll.
Re: Re: Short term thinking begets short term solutions
China largely never had government deriving power from the people, rather moving from one noble class to the next. Hong Kong did experience government derived from the people and when the main government stopped the policy of seperate government 15+ years early, we see violent protests.
I think AAC is optimistic in his assessment about the populace fighting facist takeover, but I think he misses the other short-sighted part of Barr, who rails against progressives and leftists. That in all likelihood a leftist will hold that power within 6 years, and he is going to HATE that.
I was thinking of something different, specifically "follow the established rules". Sometimes, this leads to content being banned that shouldn't, which then leads to a process of refinement of the rules, thereby leading to better rules.
We don't need to rely on questioning the bias of the moderator to see the flaws in evermore complex, refined, centralized content moderation rules.
That process will never and can never produce a perfect set of rules, but lets assume we achieved perfect rules and moderators were capable of applying the subjective rules without bias. Once content rules get sufficently complex to approach perfection, the complexity of the system will lead to breakdowns in understanding of the rules, the exceptions, and their applicability. As well, content moderation at scale relies on speed. Speed is the enemy of complex rules for moderation. Note Masnick's comments on the number of failures Facebook would see if we achieve 99.9% success in applying the content moderation rules. It doesn't matter how good faith the mods act, 35,000 mistakes a day will create outrage. The more complex and nuanced, the higher likelihood a mistake will occur dragging down that 99.9% correct application of the rules.
We don't need to insert the concept of bad actors to understand the issues in your idea.
CDA 230 exists because of the Prodigy ruling. When we say that CDA 230 was written to encourage moderation, the prodigy ruling is the reason CDA 230 exists, because under Prodigy the only ways to avoid liability for user speech are to never moderate or to never host user speech and congress literally wrote a law to avoid a perverse incentive system.
To cite that case as a reason to recognize "distributor liability" is to literally ignore that congress thought the case was ruled wrong and wrote a law to overturn the court decision.
No reasonable person would assume that if Bob was being called a douchebag the intent was to say that Bob was literally a sack with a syringe used in the process of douching a vagina.
Instead it would be understood as a perjorative, and as a perjorative would be an expression of opinion, just as much as being called an asshole.
On the post: The Fate Of EU Legislation Designed To Bolster Data Protection Beyond The GDPR, The ePrivacy Regulation, Hangs In The Balance
Re:
While all major browsers have 'Do not track" modes which serve to prevent long term tracking by cleaning up cookie files left behind, few if any proactively block tracking while on a website. And other trackers like verizon's "super cookies" and facebook's tracker dot are completely unaffected by such moves.
The issue is that a cookie, in the end is a file. And web browsing is entirely about requesting files without being able to KNOW what those files are before you get them. That's why a lot of web safety is focused on preventing the running of arbitrary code and autoplay Flash and javascript widgets are security risks (on top of being annoying). Incognito modes delete leftover files, including tracking cookies. But preventing the file from existing in the first place is not actually a function of incognito mode, and websites are not required to adhere to a do not track flag.
On the post: Another Day, Another Telecom Giant Caught Taking Taxpayer Subsidies They Didn't Deserve
The Pai FCC closed down an expansion of the lifeline program for fear of fraud, for which no evidence of widespread fraud has ever been provided.
I will await Sprint being decertified for Lifeline by the FCC by the end of the year, in accordance with established precident.
/s
On the post: American WeChat Users Getting Banned For Celebrating Hong Kong Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
There are a number of strawmen in your arguments. But let us focus on this
Legal arguments are not ethical/moral arguments. Discussing that WeChat legally can ban people for whatever reason does not preclude discussing if WeChat should. The specific criticism at play is that WeChat claims to not be enforcing Chinese legal standards on international WeChat that they do on the more isolated local Chinese sub network, but that those claims appear to be false.
Techdirt has repeatedly argued that congress should not be in the game of determining or dictating Moderation decisions. The first article certainly implicates that standard, and Techdirt and the commentors have criticized the efforts to dictate moderation by the US.
However, I would love to know the search you made, so I can look at those articles. Because if I remember correctly, the second headline (or a similar purge) happened first, partly in response to the massive public outcry implicating Facebook's business interests. It wasn't about Facebook being loyal to the US or acting at the direction of the government (at least not entirely). The entire saga between Facebook and The government has been pretty publicly antagonistic in fact.
Facebook had the legal right and i think was ethically in the right. I do not like that Congress has been in the middle of it. But if pressed, I would highlight that WeWork banned individuals expressing uncoordinated individual opinions, while the Russian IRA accounts were spreading intentional disinformation in a complex and organized fashion that made it difficult to combat in the marketplace of ideas and impossible to address via the judiciary, providing a stronger ethical bulwark for their removal as a matter of policy.
False Equivelances and strawmen arguements that come up once a week do not make for robust debate
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: That Time Twitter Nazis Got A Reporter Barred From Twitter Over Some Jokes
Re: Once again...NOT AT SCALE!!
Not at scale? Certainly not this one tweet in isolation. But the commentary of moderation at scale describes moderation efforts for an entire ecosystem. The entirety of a forum, of Facebook, of Twitter. The whole point is that, at the scale of a major website, issues emerge overall. For instance, in the case of 100 reported tweets a day, 9-10 like minded people could take a half hour, time research, contextualize, and make a call based on complex rules on every tweet that is reported (with each person only pulling 40 hours a week). At 99.9% moderation success rate, you have maybe 1 bad call a week.
Twitter has 500 million tweets per day and if we assume only 0.1% tweets are reported and need to be viewed by a moderator, that is 500,000 tweets that need to be addressed every day. Under the same half hour analysis, 40 hours a week, you would need 44,000 moderators, who will be a diverse group who will not have like minded values (this introduces error due to differing values). but if somehow we still have 99.9% accurate to the rules moderation, we still would see 500 errors EVERY DAY. This level of perfection in adhering to the rules is near impossible, and we could see 5000 errors a day (99% accuracy) without any stretch of the imagination.
If you look at the individual tweets, every mistake is obvious. But you aren't looking at the moderation efforts at scale. The individual rulings based on content, rules, and value judgments are not made in isolation. Discussions about moderation at scale are all about the aggregated effect of Millions of tweets, and millions of different points of view, and the impossibility of making everyone happy. Its not hard to understand, but given you consider systemic abuse of copyright simply a series of isolated anomalies that are unrelated to the failing of copyright, your confusion is incredibly on brand.
On the post: Copyright Troll Threatens Criminal Charges In Germany Against Domain Registrar
Re: Re:
Nice find. I would note to the OAC that the ruling in question involved a German domain registar, and so was subject to the jurisdiction of the German court, which is likely why EasyDNS highlighted that they are not a German compnay.
On the post: Copyright Troll Mathew Higbee Demands ~$1,000 For Image Only His Team Viewed
Re:
Nope. I prefer that Levy continue to act as an ethical lawyer.
On the post: Cable Execs Now Falsely Claiming Cord Cutting Is Slowing Down
Re: Model
USPS has a number of issues not faced by normal businesses. They are largely unable to adapt pricing to the costs faced by high COL areas like the bay area, they have to raise prices nationwide which disincentivizes personal use. They can't fraudulently declare mail carriers independent contractors to keep costs low like UPS, Fedex, and Amazon. They are legally required to over fund their pension benefits. They took a long time to adapt to the package handling boom caused by online shopping, and are held to stricter standards for mail carriers than package carriers have for independent contractors making rapid expansion difficult.
And yet, they are profitable, and still have booming operations in the business market.
On the post: Netflix Starts To Harden Its Stance On Password Sharing
Re: Re: Re:
Forgot to add, if all you want is New Star Wars content and have no interest in Marvel content or Pixar content or Disney content or the family friendly selection of FOX TV and Movie content.....I don't think Netflix would have ever had enough content for you either.
On the post: Netflix Starts To Harden Its Stance On Password Sharing
Re: Re:
The model is different. Disney+ seems to be effectively a curated selection of content focusing on big names and family friendly content. If you are just a Star wars fan, sure you won't want disney+. on the other hand, if you are a parent? you'll want it. Its almost a one stop shop for family content. And every few years, a whole new crop of kids comes around. This means that Disney+ can be viewed more like a refinement of the principles behind the disney animation vault of old. Focus on having Disney+ be something you get when you are a parent, and by the time you no longer need it, the next parent takes your place.
It was cost effective for HBO. like any free trial, some percentage of viewers did not retain a subscription. But that trial, and Game of Thrones, brought in enough viewers who then either continued to pay and/or found other content they also wanted to watch. That's why HBO boomed financially, and yes after GoT ended they lost subscribers. But HBO was super profitable during the GoT period, and seem to have retained some subscribers post GoT, so questions of cost effectiveness are misplaced. Id say the y positioned themselves well for the streaming transition, but the new CEO seems to be taking the scattershot content approach that failed netflix instead of the quality content I feel justifies the subscription, so their fall will come from the new management, not the failure to capitalize every dollar during the GoT years.
On the post: Netflix Starts To Harden Its Stance On Password Sharing
I think its important to note what is happening in the industry as a whole - Netflix is losing the biggest sources of Major studio titles it had left. I was struck by how seemingly 2 years into the Netflix exclusivity contract Disney announced it would stop using netflix and make its own service, a service which currently has a number of titles unavailible because the netflix contract still applies to recent releases. It has left netflix beholden to exclusives, but those probably aren't holding subscribers at the level they used to with the shallower content pool.
Netflix is clearly entering the "we are losing subscribers" realm, having missed new subscriber estimates my several million in Q2 2019. This isn't the first time they cracked down on "password sharing", they implemented clear simultaneous stream limits in 2012, with customers paying more for more simultaneous streams. This served to stop some password sharing as paying for your friend to freeload is a much different prospect. But any attempt to try to enforce some sort of 'household' verification risks losing subscribers (or accelerating subscriber loss), an issue Netflix itself was expressing in 2015 when it talked about why it didn't care about subscriber losses.
Netflix's downfall is in the end the juggernaut that is Disney. Netflix boomed after Disney made Netflix the streaming destination for marvel films, and the Marvel Netflix originals were generally well received. I in fact have cited the coup of Netflix getting Disney as a reason it would survive the market fragmentation. But Netflix's shotgun approach to original content, combined with high profile cancellations of show with fan and critical acclaim that make Fox's primetime failures seem quaint, have not served to hook the consumer on Netflix as a studio, and Disney almost immediately decided it would make more money on its own. The crackdown is a symptom of market fragmentation, and a symptom of Disney's dominance.
On the post: Alexander Vindman Now Threatens Bogus SLAPP Suit Against Fox News & Laura Ingraham
Re: "A republic -- if you can keep it"
Not so. If they convict Trump, the argument could then be made that while pence was aware of the crime, and may have contributed to it, his actions did not rise to the corrupt action necessary for impeachment. Its the argument Republicans should have been arguing from the beginning. We don't need to further impeach Pence, unless I missed the part where Sondland confessed Pence was VP Agnew 2.0. Impeach Trump, and maintain oversight, but don't start impeachment against Pence. Impeaching Pence would be using Impeachment as a political tool.
Issues of the president speaking to half the populace predate trump, and will continue with our without impeachment.
On the post: Alexander Vindman Now Threatens Bogus SLAPP Suit Against Fox News & Laura Ingraham
Re:
The specifics of the case.
The original pedo guy comment was likely protected opinion, but Musk later stated that he had evidence gathered by a PI that the British Ex-pat met and married a 12 year old girl in Thailand, a false statement of fact. The PI actually reported his wife was 18 when they met and married, and his wife argues she was even older. The later statement has the strongest case, as Musk seemed to be clearly arguing facts at that point, not merely opinion based on prejudices
On the post: Alexander Vindman Now Threatens Bogus SLAPP Suit Against Fox News & Laura Ingraham
Re:
Ah, no. The accusation is the security expert on Ukraine occasionally spoke in Ukrainian with the Ukrainians instead of English and therefore he was committing treason.
On the post: Alexander Vindman Now Threatens Bogus SLAPP Suit Against Fox News & Laura Ingraham
Re: Lawyers
Pressman also works for the government, which may avoid the rules you are referencing. Or, Pressman may be operating on contingency, which would not be a "gift". Finally, I do not believe the rules on emoluments would apply in this case given Vindman's position in the government.
If it was a concern though, id have imagined the republicans would have brought it up instead of trying to kill shot him on being offered a job.
On the post: Court Says It's Not Tortious Interference To Report Your Account Or Ask Twitter To Ban You
Re: Re: Re:
The reason to ask the question it can is to have the person explain the legal theory being presented. Confirming Green AC's skepticism over the claim that Doxxing could be considered "fair-housing violation or interference with a rental contract" doesn't move that discussion forward - and your commentary on BLM suggests an assumption that Green AC would assume that somehow a supporter of BLM (do they actually have a 'membership'? I didn't think they were an organization, but a movement) wouldn't be suseptible to issues of Doxxing, which is most definitely not in evidence.
Combined those 2 factors suggest a subtle but hostile troll.
On the post: Attorney General Calls FOIA Requests 'Harassment' During Long Rant About How Much It Sucks To Be Running The Nation
Re: Re: Short term thinking begets short term solutions
China largely never had government deriving power from the people, rather moving from one noble class to the next. Hong Kong did experience government derived from the people and when the main government stopped the policy of seperate government 15+ years early, we see violent protests.
I think AAC is optimistic in his assessment about the populace fighting facist takeover, but I think he misses the other short-sighted part of Barr, who rails against progressives and leftists. That in all likelihood a leftist will hold that power within 6 years, and he is going to HATE that.
On the post: Masnick's Impossibility Theorem: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well
Re:
We don't need to rely on questioning the bias of the moderator to see the flaws in evermore complex, refined, centralized content moderation rules.
That process will never and can never produce a perfect set of rules, but lets assume we achieved perfect rules and moderators were capable of applying the subjective rules without bias. Once content rules get sufficently complex to approach perfection, the complexity of the system will lead to breakdowns in understanding of the rules, the exceptions, and their applicability. As well, content moderation at scale relies on speed. Speed is the enemy of complex rules for moderation. Note Masnick's comments on the number of failures Facebook would see if we achieve 99.9% success in applying the content moderation rules. It doesn't matter how good faith the mods act, 35,000 mistakes a day will create outrage. The more complex and nuanced, the higher likelihood a mistake will occur dragging down that 99.9% correct application of the rules.
We don't need to insert the concept of bad actors to understand the issues in your idea.
On the post: Andrew Yang's Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Tech Policy
Re: Re:
CDA 230 exists because of the Prodigy ruling. When we say that CDA 230 was written to encourage moderation, the prodigy ruling is the reason CDA 230 exists, because under Prodigy the only ways to avoid liability for user speech are to never moderate or to never host user speech and congress literally wrote a law to avoid a perverse incentive system.
To cite that case as a reason to recognize "distributor liability" is to literally ignore that congress thought the case was ruled wrong and wrote a law to overturn the court decision.
On the post: Court To Racist Douchebags: It's Not Defamatory For A Newspaper To Call You 'Racist Douchebags'
Re: Re: Re:
Defamation is about false statements of fact.
No reasonable person would assume that if Bob was being called a douchebag the intent was to say that Bob was literally a sack with a syringe used in the process of douching a vagina.
Instead it would be understood as a perjorative, and as a perjorative would be an expression of opinion, just as much as being called an asshole.
On the post: Should Doxxing Be Illegal?
Re: Re:
Is rose Mcgowan a lawyer doxxing a litigant?
Next >>