Internet Censorship and Social Media ID Verification

just-human on 25/12/2024 - 01:46

A while ago, I made this post here about a social media ban for under 16s.

In summary, the government is implementing a plan to ban children from social media by verifying the age of everyone through various undecided measures including ID verification. Many in the media, including on OzBargain supported the legislation (full disclosure: I do not).

Recently, Vietnam has announced plans to introduce ID verification for social media accounts which has received much scrutiny, including from the Guardian who have labelled it as "draconian". This is very different from the coverage in Australia for similar plans which focuses on children rather than the potential risks of the plan.

My question to everyone is: Should we hold ourselves to different standards to other countries when implementing similar legislation?

Poll Options Wed, 01/01/2025 - 00:00

  • 12
    Yes, we should
  • 49
    No, we should hold ourselves to the same scrutiny
Internet

Comments

  • Hybroid on 25/12/2024 - 02:30

    Every country assesses their perspective and subtleties on potential benefits and risks for its population. What Vietnam chooses to do is irrelevant here. As is The Guardian’s opinion piece.

    • JimmyF on 25/12/2024 - 09:05
      +1

      Our media is far from unbiased reporting, news corpse was one of the main companies pushing the social media bill.

    • Iwantthebestprice on 25/12/2024 - 23:17
      +2

      This is completely wrong. How can Vietnams be “draconian” but Australia’s not? Before you make such blatant statements you should back them up. Absolute disgrace that Australia has been able to basically introduce mandatory ID for social media websites. We are one step away from draconian laws of internet censorship.

  • haemolysis on 25/12/2024 - 04:50
    +7

    In the Australian proposals, user identification is not actually required at all and can, at least in theory, be done anonymously.

    For example, the government is working on APIs to allow digital “attestation”. This means your digital id service wouldn’t share personally identifying information, it will only attest relevant facts. So for example, instead of saying “DOB: XXXX” it will instead share something like “user is over 18 = true.” Australian banks seem to be working on similar technologies as well (eg ConnectID), so in theory we are expecting several options including non-government becoming available some time in the future.

    It’s all very premature, and you are totally correct in your previous post to say it “hasn’t been tested anywhere.” Most of this has only started development after the Optus/Medibank breaches. So it remains to be seen if the tech will be secure, private and good… or tainted.

    But at least in theory, if implemented well, we might be able to validate facts to open accounts without sharing the keys to our identity.

    Vietnam in the other hand, is really the “old model.” They strictly require identification, retention, and disclosure on request. There’s no possibility of the emergence of private systems under that law. Users must be identified and logged by law.

    For this reason, it’s not necessarily contradictory to support the Australian model and consider the Vietnam model as draconian. They’re not the same.

    • elgrande on 25/12/2024 - 07:25
      +10

      Lol. The issue is not old model vs new model. For both models the powers that be will be able to see what you are up to and bring you back in line if your comment or activity does not align with their desired agenda.

    • JimmyF on 25/12/2024 - 09:05
      +6

      in theory, be done anonymously

      in theory they tell you it can be done anonymously, but that isn't what they want.

      • haemolysis on 25/12/2024 - 15:55

        Frankly, I’m even more cynical than that.

        I fully expect the government to really do the “worst of both worlds.” They will fight tooth and nail to ensure the system is secure and private.

        And then …still track us… by alternate means.

        Kind of like for example how they built a COVID tracking app. Which was subject to intense political debate, private and anonymous, and didn’t have the power to track users. And yet. They still tracked down people… by other means and traditional surveillance.

      • bargaino on 25/12/2024 - 18:40
        +1

        In theory, I could say that JimmyF is a Russian troll, but wild conspiracy accusations are a bit pointless without evidence.

  • EightImmortals on 25/12/2024 - 07:24
    +7

    Funny how seemingly unconnected countries have been working in lock-step with each other on many of these types of issues recently.

    • Murkymerv on 25/12/2024 - 07:55
      +1

      Yes , it's called the great reset .

      • BoltThrower on 25/12/2024 - 08:37
        +2

        Agenda 2030, particularly Goal#16.

    • GordonD on 25/12/2024 - 08:07
      -4

      Funny how seemingly unconnected countries have been working in lock-step with each other on many of these types of issues recently

      I can think of two quite different answers to that.

      That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

      and

      No its not the slightest bit funny.

      Australia and Vietnam are NOT that different in certain ways. Vietnam is a country where the people are very much controlled by the government. And Australia is a country where, as much as we like to think we are free, we put up with a remarkably high level of government control in a lot of ways. As someone put it the other day, we are a compliant country. We don't object to a lot of the toughest road rules and penalties. Seat belt laws and random breath testing and speed radar with large penalties and phone use cameras. And we put up with tougher COVID restrictions. And compulsory voting laws. You can argue they work(ed). But in a lot of countries they wouldn't have been accepted. In Australia they were and are.

      • RockyRaccoon on 25/12/2024 - 09:03
        +2

        And compulsory voting laws

        Isnt it ironic, but no identity needed when you vote. Have voted "twice" a few times. For myself at one booth and another for my brother who wanted a vote cast and was travelling overseas at the time.

        And what if I voted twice under my name. No identification, so sure they may contact me, but I can just deny it. Also since the vote is anonymously marked, they wouldnt know which was was invalid.

        As for identification on the internet. Unless they also ban VPN's and/or they ban mutiple accounts and/or very country has same identity requirements what does it really achieve. Like many rules, it only limits those who play by the game.

        Like all laws it will only be as good as the way its enforced. When governments fine mobile phone use in a car, more than some drug dealing, you have to wonder how effective they will be in enforcing any rule they implement.

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 25/12/2024 - 09:30
          +4

          When governments fine mobile phone use in a car, more than some drug dealing,

          I agree, shouldn't be a fine, should be a loss of licence for at least 12 months and an impounded car.

          A couple of mates and I were almost taken out by a dual cab ute last week. Old mate, coming from a side road was looking at his phone, missed the give way sign and ended up stopping in our cycling lane, pushing us out into traffic. And yes, we were in the dedicated cycling lane, in broad daylight with bright clothing.

          • RockyRaccoon on 25/12/2024 - 16:17

            @DashCam AKA Rolts: No disputing your frustration or that a fine probably isnt enough. My issue is the relativity of fines/punishment.

            A footy player can have remorse after driving unlicensed and causes hip damage to a 4 year old in a crash and gets off with a fine lower than the mobile phone use in the same state.

            Drive erractically with drugs and no license, by play the Ball and get hit with at least a fine more than just using the phone. Again not saying or inferring phone while driving is ok or not bad, it was an example to show how relativity/seriousness isnt being followed,

          • Nugs on 26/12/2024 - 07:19

            @DashCam AKA Rolts: DashCam AKA Rolts aka mamil?
            .

        • Ughhh on 25/12/2024 - 22:46

          When governments fine mobile phone use in a car, more than some drug dealing,

          Huh, drug dealing can get you up to $11k and up $220k for commercial quantities and years on jail. You saying mobile phone fines are more than that?

          • RockyRaccoon on 26/12/2024 - 06:36

            @Ughhh:

            Commercial

            • Ughhh on 26/12/2024 - 10:45

              @RockyRaccoon: $410 for mobile phone use in NSW, and up to $5500 for dealing small quantities. In what world is $410 > $5500?

      • EightImmortals on 25/12/2024 - 18:36
        +2

        Oh looky there's another one……

        https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/insulting-uk-government…

  • poboy on 25/12/2024 - 08:50
    +1

    I just want social media organisations to be accountable for hosting malicious false content. Pull the content within 12 hours and ban users. These companies need to be held accountable, rather than the public.

    Age gating isn't going to fix the cesspool.

    • JimmyF on 25/12/2024 - 09:09
      +4

      organisations to be accountable for hosting malicious false content

      The problem is, most people class 'false' content as anything they don't agree with it.

      Climate change for example is classed as 'false' content by many people, so should it be removed? Many think it is malicious.

      • Nugs on 26/12/2024 - 07:21
        -1

        Because science?
        .

    • RockyRaccoon on 25/12/2024 - 09:12

      Exactly, even pulling comments that might not be malicious, which you could appeal the ban, isnt as dangerous as letting pile ons occur.

      But of course this will mean extra staff and training which will cost the zuckertypes money.

      Except the issue will be that one persons "fake" news might not be anothers.

      The Blind men and the elephant story comes to mind.

      Direct quote from Wikipedia.

      The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it.

      Each blind man feels a different part of the animal's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the animal based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows.

      The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true

      Of course in this story it doesnt allow for those who are deliberately manipulating the truth.

    • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 10:24

      I just want social media organisations to be accountable for hosting malicious false content.

      If you got your way you'd break the current American political,social,economic model.

      • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 08:47

        Maybe not. The US government is not allowed to restrict free speech, however as the recent plandemic censorship via twitter, facebook and others has shown, it is perfectly acceptable from a legal standpoint to outsource the censorship to private corporations who allegedly have their own free speech rights too.

        • Protractor on 26/12/2024 - 09:22
          -2

          Oh yes because right now Trump/Musks USA is a bastion of adherence to law and the constitution. LOL
          They are a shit bucket goon fest thanks to the power if big money influence through social media and bastardisation of the rule of law.
          The abuse of the term free speech so rank lies can prevail is exactly why we have earned proper regulation of the cess pool. Bring it on.

          • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 09:39

            @Protractor: Strawman. I did not advance any positive commentary about Trump. In fact one might infer that I was speaking ill of Trump given it was under his Presidency that that particular scam I alluded to began.

            They are a shit bucket goon fest thanks to the power if (sic) big money influence

            So nothing's changed but the face of the slave master.

    • gelatiman77 on 25/12/2024 - 12:09
      +3

      I just want to be exposed to the official narrative from the government because I know that the government would never lie to me to progress an agenda. Anyone who says anything in opposition to the government is a domestic terrorist and should be removed from the public forum.

      • Protractor on 26/12/2024 - 09:27
        -1

        Google 'catastrophising' and 'paranoia', then extrapolate what sites you visit.
        I actually hope that this decision forces all those who hate the idea to find a country more aligned with this waffle.
        It would be a tier 2 way of cleaning up disinformation amd misinformation. The govt could do a trade deal with 'free speech' America.

        • gelatiman77 on 26/12/2024 - 11:57

          "Catastrophising" has been one of my favourite words for a while now.

  • JimmyF on 25/12/2024 - 09:03
    +5

    Recently, Vietnam has announced plans to introduce ID verification for social media accounts which has received much scrutiny, including from the Guardian(theguardian.com) who have labelled it as "draconian". This is very different from the coverage in Australia for similar plans which focuses on children rather than the potential risks of the plan.

    The difference is our media was behind our social media ban pulling the strings from a distance. Media watch did a bit on this a while ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8SkLRxFRVM

    Noticed how now the social media bill has passed and all these child suicide stories have disappeared overnight from the media? What happened to all these kids being 'harmed'?

    It was never about protecting the kids. It is about linking content the gov doesn't like to people.

    Look over at the UK, the police and questioning and arresting people based on social media content posts they don't like. That is where we are heading.

  • DingoBilly on 25/12/2024 - 09:19
    -1

    Eugh, I hate bullshit. The laws are very different, and I wish you'd stop spreading misinformation just to try and further your point. You work for a social media company or something?

    The first few paragraphs of the article you link in the Vietnam law say:
    "The law, which comes into force on Christmas Day, will compel tech companies operating in Vietnam to store user data, provide it to authorities on request, and remove content the government regards as “illegal” within 24 hours."

    That's very different to what's being proposed as part of the laws here. The social media ban/ID verification here is optional, not to mention the fact that realistically, many researchers do support it. Social media (profanity) up children pretty bad, as well as adults. Also, it's not about government removing content and providing user info to government.

    But seriously, if you're going to push a point whether valid or not, at least do it appropriately, not with false equivalences between different laws and countries. Just means I disregard everything you say because I know you're horribly biased and not capable of critical thinking.

    • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 10:34
      -4

      Clearly OP has a lot to hide.
      What happened to Anonymous,anyway? Is it like video killed the radio star? ergo VPNs killed the Robin Hoods of the web?

      • just-human on 25/12/2024 - 13:32

        I'm confused, what would I have to hide?

        • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 13:33
          -4

          You'd know.Post a list of possibilities.If there are none, then cancel the panic.

          • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 12:03

            @Protractor: Maybe just-human is a battered housewife who is trying to arrange a viable way to escape their hellish existence?
            Maybe just-human in 5 years from now wants to talk about getting an abortion but in 3 years from now an LNP government has already banned abortions.
            Maybe just-human is a queer identifying teen trying to find supportive friends online because they live in a small town and their family are ultra orthodox muslims.

            Nothing to hide, nothing to fear (your argument) is BS. Even if you don't have anything to hide right now, it does not mean others don't have legitimate things to hide, nor does it mean you never will.

  • JIMB0 on 25/12/2024 - 09:36
    -1

    I'd be more worried about the government's ban on incandescent light globes and mass roll out of LED light globes. Why would they go door to door giving them away for free?? I'll tell you why, they're filled with electronics that are used to spy on us. They capture your wifi signals and record your private conversations.

    They did all this under the guise of environmental concerns. With the amount of solar installed now and nuclear energy on the horizon there was absolutely no need to go all in on energy efficient lighting. It's not about saving energy, it's about spying on and controlling the people.

    • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 10:32
      -1

      110% correct! There's also nano microchips in the census paperwork that come off and track and monitor you for life.
      One we'll all wake up and be broke and carrying Putins passport as ID. Balaclavas and bunkers is the only solution.Don't go near a hypodermic syringe , unless you personally loaded it. ;0

      All this paranoia is warranted,justified and earned. Total control, if it ever comes, is self inflicted by way of our own behaviour and (worse) that of the worst offenders, who rather than call out, we enabled or followed.

    • Bruceflix on 26/12/2024 - 03:17

      Where is the ozbargain link to free lights?

  • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 10:22
    -4

    Poll Option 3.
    Should OP find another axe to grind.Rather than run this political agenda
    Poll Option 4
    Should OP declare his agenda

    Finally, internet goal posts. Beyond too late. Decent humans have SFA to fear.

    • just-human on 25/12/2024 - 13:29
      +3

      I do not support this law and I make that very clear.

      • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 13:30
        -4

        Plenty of ppl do.Bring it on.

    • RockyRaccoon on 25/12/2024 - 16:20

      I want evidence that you wont use this against me befotre I vote in this poll.

      • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 16:23

        Assurance is written below in transparent text.
        Use the highlight selected text to read>

    • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 11:46

      Decent humans have SFA to fear.

      Translation: only boot lickers and government sh*t munchers are good people. Anyone who questions the government is scum. Anyone who disagrees is scum. The government is always good and benevolent and always will be. Always was, always will be. All heil the government (even Trump I guess and Assad and Netanyahoo and Pol Pot and Mao and Stalin and Hitler)

  • dtc on 25/12/2024 - 10:31

    in Saudi Arabia they ban alcohol for everyone and in Australia we ban it for people under 18. Therefore it’s the same thing and Australia is essentially an Islamic caliphate

    Oh, wait, having a different law for children and adults is not the same thing as having a law that applies to everyone

    • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 12:05
      +1

      Age verification will apply to everyone. How do you propose a social media company confirm that users are not below 16 years of age without identifying those users who are above 16 years of age?

  • Counter Intelligence on 25/12/2024 - 11:49
    +1

    We will just stop using social media the way they want, and we will use the darknet and 4chan instead.

    Let's make a ozbargain thread on Dread.

    • plmko on 25/12/2024 - 13:38
      +1

      Even the days of darknet and 4chan were better days to be frank.

    • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 15:34
      -1

      Yes because the ASIO boys etc have no idea what or where the dark web is. They don't go there cos it's out of bounds to authorities. Only the outlaws are allowed there.It's a rule.
      Most ppl won't give a toss about these laws,either way. We already have a filter on the net and it's been there for years. Ppl themselves jumped to VPN to avoid the filter And I'm 100% sure all of them VPNs are safe reputable,never share access or could be infiltrated by non users!
      /s

      PS Stop using social media. ???
      DUCK! (flying pig)

      • Counter Intelligence on 25/12/2024 - 18:19
        +1

        If they choose to go after you for writing about some bargain deals, that's their decision of ASIO and what a waste of taxpayers money that would be.

        Darknet and 4Chan provide a town square where you can chat freely on topics whilst staying anonymous. It isn't about whether the authorities go onto there or not.

        It is about deciding whether to use regulated social media or unregulated social media.

        I would rather come across the often troll picture of a frog eating a pig rather than be sent to an re-education camp which is what I foresee in the near future for those who speak up on various matters including Aboriginal rights, Medical freedom, Fluoride debate and so on.

        You can't have debates in Australia anymore. I don't think people have grasped that issue yet.

        • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 20:08
          -2

          Looking at X,etc, America generally, foreign interference, and the current public internet, regulation pour moi please.
          Placing 'trolling' on the same level as what this legislation aims to tackle is disingenuous at best.

          Re-education camps,fluoride,vaccinations (even when reshaped as medical freedom it's a flashing light phrase?) FFS.

          Username really checks out

          • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 13:12

            @Protractor: "I don't like some opinions and content on some parts of the interwebs. Daddy government please help me! I don't know what this button labelled "block" does and I don't know what the cross in the top corner of the internet window does."

            PS Stop using social media. ???

        • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 12:09
          +1

          Fluoride debate

          There is no debate. It's toxic, particularly to the brains of unborn children and children in general (lowers IQ), and it damages teeth (fluorosis).

          • Protractor on 27/12/2024 - 09:43
            -1

            @tenpercent: That explains all the cookers

            • tenpercent on 27/12/2024 - 11:09

              @Protractor: If that explains all the cookers, then you agree with the science on the neurotoxicity of fluoride, right?

              "fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children

  • Daabido on 25/12/2024 - 12:46

    Both Labor and Liberal are just bowing to their corporate media puppeteers, Lachlan / Rupert Murdoch who love to run politics in this country and Costello's ****heads at 9 Fairfax.

    • Protractor on 25/12/2024 - 13:32
      +3

      LOL, Murdoch is no friend of Labor. He's literally an arm of the right, who have usurped the original conservative 'liberal' party. It's just one of his servants.
      Th entire MSM is on board.

      • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 08:30

        But the arm of the right is attached to the same body as the arm of the left.

        • Protractor on 26/12/2024 - 09:35

          Rupert wouldn't have a left bone in his festering vessel

  • p1 ama on 25/12/2024 - 19:27

    My hypothesis is that this policy will never actually be implemented - I see several critical issues (based on my experience having previously worked in adjacent areas):

    1. It will likely take the government 5+ years, it not longer, to even get close to building and deploying the required technology, then to liaise with various private entities (social media companies), and to address obvious potential loopholes. It is likely that by the time the government get around to this, the world may have already moved on.

    2. Past attempts at similar "national ID" laws have always failed. Some here may be too old to recall the "Australia Card", which was an attempt for a "centralised" government ID system proposed in 1985, not dissimilar to what would be required here. The idea was abandoned in 1987, and broadly just fizzled out of the limelight. I suspect this is also what would happen to this policy - after several years, we will likely just never hear of it again

    3. Attempts to prevent access to certain content online have never been successful. Record labels and movie studios (which have some of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world) have not realistically been able to prevent broader access to pirated content. Basic attempts to prevent access are easily side-stepped, which would be the same case here.

    4. The social media landscape has changed significantly - in most press releases, the government has cited "Facebook" as the key target, which is already not being used by most people in the relevant age group. This is not to mention that there is not an insignificant risk that certain social media companies will simply refuse to implement the required age screening. This puts any enforcement agency in a difficult place - a ban of many social media sites will likely be more damaging to Australia more broadly than it would be to any social media company (given Australia's small, and rather irrelevant user base)

    The reality is that every generation, there is always a moral panic about something, and those of us old enough will remember the equivalent panics about rock music, "violent" action movies, video games, now it's just social media in the crosshairs. People can't seem to accept that kids will always take risks, push boundaries, and engage in unhealthy and sometimes dangerous behaviours. It is a part of growing up, and what they need is guidance. Sheltering kids, particularly teenagers, from life's vices will only create problems when they become adults. It's just lousy parents kicking the can down the road to an age where they can feel fine about washing their hands of their responsibility.

    • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 08:39
      1. They will outsource it to the corporate sector as part of a "public private partnership" (which is just a warm fuzzy friendly way to package facism) to fast-track development and deployment. It has bipartisan support and is being pushed globally, so they will make it happen.
      2. Australia is a very different place in 2024 than in the 1980s or 1990s or even early 2000s. The majority of the opponents back in that time are either already passed or are in old folk homes.
      3. China seems relatively successful at preventing access to certain content online (although they take a different approach). Even Trudeau admitted that China is the aspirational model.
      4. The language of the legislation will be sufficiently broad that the Minister or some high ranking bureacrat will be able to place whatever they deem to be social media under the law. Maybe Ozbargain forums will be included.
      • p1 ama on 26/12/2024 - 11:05

        China seems relatively successful at preventing access to certain content online (although they take a different approach). Even Trudeau admitted that China is the aspirational model.

        This is laughable - every Chinese person I know uses VPNs to access the same internet that the rest of the world does.

        • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 11:37

          Are you in China? Perhaps all the Chinese people you know online are the ones who get around the firewall with a VPN because the others haven't got around the firewall and hence you don't come in contact with them online. Sample selection bias.

          • p1 ama on 26/12/2024 - 12:25

            @tenpercent: It's not my opinion - 31% of people in China use a VPN (as of 2017, so 7 years ago). The figure is likely to be significantly higher today (see: https://www.statista.com/statistics/301204/top-markets-vpn-p…)

            Not sure what your argument is - are you trying to say that the Chinese government have implemented a successful means of "preventing access to certain content online"?

            The idea that it can be considered "successful" is laughable - as per my original point.

            • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 13:07

              @p1 ama: 31% get around the firewall, so 69% did not. How come 69% is not "successful"?

              "Preventing access to certain content online" for 69% of the population is relatively successful. We can (but I won't) argue all day about how successful, but it definitely isn't a complete failure.

              The argument was that your claim "Attempts to prevent access to certain content online have never been successful" is not true.

  • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 08:42

    The better questions are: why are online age verification and identity verification systems being pushed via legislation all across the world recently? Which lobby groups or 'think tanks' are behing it? And who is behind those groups?

    • Protractor on 26/12/2024 - 09:50

      No the big question is why even bother. We'll be turned into char long before we decry the loss of freedom online, unless something radical happens to address climate change and population levels.
      If you need a conspiracy for your boiler in the bunker try that.This shit is another distraction.

      • tenpercent on 26/12/2024 - 09:57
        +1

        All the polar bears are long since dead. Al Gore, Obama, Gates and friends don't all own waterfront properties that will be underwater 10 years ago. If you cry enough and blow that hot air from your mouth at your tears it will evaporate and contribute to cooling the planet.

        You are welcome to volunteer to address population levels. Action starts at home.

        Globally coordinated loss of freedom = distraction. Nice try fascist. That ain't convincing anyone.

        • Protractor on 27/12/2024 - 09:45

          No conspiracies left.You've swallowed them all.
          *username checks out

          • tenpercent on 27/12/2024 - 10:51

            @Protractor: Looks like we have a coincidence theorist here.
            *Profile pic does not check out. You wouldn't comprehend science or logic as opposed to garbage-in garbage-out modelling and statistical misrepresentations even if Al Gore pulled out his floppy manipulated hockey stick and used it poke you in the bum.

            • Protractor on 27/12/2024 - 10:56

              @tenpercent: Keep telling yourself that while Victoria turns to ash. It should be easy for you to identify science,It all the shit you don't believe, driven by the inability to see anything in front of you.

              Yes, because all science starts and ends with Al Gore. He sounds like your Nemesis,not my god.

              Get out more

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join