Wednesday, June 16, 2010

I guess Hacker News doesn't like negative articles about Apple

Amazing.

I wrote a piece a few hours ago and noticed that someone had posted it to Hacker News. I never know when one of my pieces will get posted there or Reddit or wherever, so it is always pleasant to see.

The piece was about my concern about law enforcement and its role in the Apple Gizmodo situation and now the AT&T Goatse situation.

The piece got at least 10 points, and made it to the front page... where it was then killed.

This is amazing to me. I am not really a part of the Hacker News community, but the fact that apparently they censor articles because they disagree with the content is incredible. I thought the idea was, if people don't like something then that is reflected in the voting. But I guess sometimes Mr. Graham (the HN proprietor), knows best what is safe for people to read.

Next thing you know I am sure I will be banned from *reading* Hacker News. I'm sure its coming.

50 comments:

  1. There is a mechanism built into the site where if enough people flag the article, it gets removed automatically. Users don't need a reason to flag an article; they just can. Most often it's because it's not topical enough for HN. I'm a fan of your writing in general, but you didn't even mention this in your article, so I'm assuming you decided to throw the "censor" label out there without knowing what you're talking about. Not cool.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not a member of the HN community so I have no idea what the internal mechanisms are. As far as I know, it is not posted anywhere, and so I dont even know if what you are saying is true, particularly since you are posting as anonymous. I dont mean to be rude, I am just saying that I didnt know this, and even after your saying it here I dont know it. And even if it was so, the idea that a clearly on topic article can get killed because people are upset by the politics or perspective of the content seems to reflect a broken system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who cares if I post as anonymous? The facts stand on their own. The fact that you don't know how a system works doesn't give you the right to call an individual a censor.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I stopped participating in HN about 2 months ago after the groupthink there started to bother me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. what facts? Where are these facts posted. And as far as I know, calling someone, or their system, or both, a censor is not exactly an expletive or even an insult, unless that is not your intent. If it isnt your intent then the fact that something was *censored* because people disagreed with the perspective, should be instructive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, fairly sure the original article just sucked.

    Also, HN has negative stories about Apple ALL THE TIME.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If it sucked, shouldn't the voting system just take care of that? hmm... perhaps something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is a cadre of pro-Gray Powell folks at HN. They've MASSIVELY downvoted ANY criticism of Apple or Gray in this whole affair. But outside this niche, there's your usual some-pro-some-anti Apple constituency.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm with the Anon above. It's almost everyday there's something negative about Apple. Odds are the HN readers just didn't find your article interesting enough.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ryan,

    If that were true it wouldnt have gotten 10 points and have been on the front page. Its not that it wasn't interesting. Its that it was polarizing. If it wasnt interesting they wouldnt need to intervene because it wouldnt be on the front page.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As a type of evidence: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1278409

    For context, 364 points is an usually large number of points for a single submission (most on the front page have between 25 and 100) and 150 points for a comment that says little more than "he's a good guy" is unheard of. So there's a group of people that really like to kill anything that's not anti-gizmodo or pro-Gary on this particular issue.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous,

    Thanks, that is amazing. Obviously things are a bit broken when some small group of people can kill a clearly debatable, and should be debated subject. This is actually a serious matter and the fact that people arent thinking about the implications is pretty amazing to me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What you know: One of your articles was posted on HN, and then got killed.

    What you claim to know: The article was killed because Paul Graham disagreed with the content and considers it not "safe for people to read" on account of its being a negative article about Apple.

    Evidence that what you claim to know isn't actually true, #1: As already mentioned above, HN users can flag things that they think aren't appropriate for HN, and flagging can lead to removal. (I don't know how automatic the mechanism is.) I know that at least one person flagged your article not for being "negative about Apple" but for being uninteresting, linkbait-y, short on evidence, and overblown. (How do I know that? Because *I* flagged it for that reason.)

    Evidence that what you claim to know isn't actually true, #2: Plenty of negative articles about Apple have done well on HN recently. Examples: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1317683 ("How Apple is breaking the law with the App Store" -- from your blog, even), http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1420821 ("IPhone 4's 'Retina' display claims are false marketing"), http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1259792 ("Five rational arguments against Apple's 3.3.1 policy").

    Evidence that whether or not what you claim to know is actually true, you don't really know it: The only way you could would be if Paul Graham or someone of the sort had contacted you and told you so. Which would be very, very unlikely (for different reasons) whether your conspiracy theory is true or false.

    Further remark: for an article to get 10 points is very little evidence that it's any good. It means only that 10 people (including the original submitter) liked it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hank,

    Apparently there are a lot of things you "don't know" but are willing to write about as if you were certain. You wrote this post complaining about "Mr. Graham" and his assistants removing your post because they "disagree with the content", despite admitting that you don't know the internal mechanisms at HN.

    That's why your posts were both removed from HN. Both are speculative bullshit, and there are a number of us who make a habit of flagging such things. I have no problem with valid anti-Apple posts or with valid complaints about HN's ranking/voting/flagging system, but neither the previous post nor this one are of sufficient quality to warrant space on HN.

    (posted anonymously out of solidarity with the original anonymous guy.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Garth,

    What a dumb comment.

    You lost it when you said the piece was short on "evidence". It is an opinion piece about a set of facts that are not in dispute. The fact that you didnt like it is your business, but dont say something as stupid as that you didnt like an opinion piece because it didnt have enough "evidence".

    ReplyDelete
  16. And again... anonymous.

    Same as with Gareth. How can an "opinion piece" be speculative? It didnt speculate about anything. It presented a set of not in dispute facts and then provided my perspective about them. Feel free to disagree with my opinion. But the "there's not enough evidence" or its "speculative" line of attack is just really stupid.

    As far as what happened, it seems clear that even you, who present yourself as an HN knowledgeable person, dont know how things work. What we do know is there was nothing offensive or off topic in the post. It was clearly relevant to the tech audience. If the system is allowing people to circumvent the voting system because they dont like the perspective of the piece, that is censorship. And since it is Mr. Graham's system, I would humbly suggest it is his responsibility.

    And as far as the real reason the post was killed, it sounds like anonymous at 6:31 has the best analysis so far.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You'd have to get 10 people to comment before it reaches 10 'flag' votes for it to survive. The number of points don't matter: comments do. You could have +34, but if nobody comments and 10 people flag, it dies. I think generally this makes sense because something that gets points but not discussion is probably more a 'digg' thing than a news.yc thing. (I don't have a canonical source, but there's no 'list of rules' for HN, just comments over time.) But there are times that doesn't work so well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Consider the difference between "Apple's TOS are poorly thought out and will alienate developers" and "Apple's TOS are Steve Jobs' attempt to get back at a girl he dated who was working on flash-based iPhone apps". Both may be considered "opinion", but the first is analysis and the second is link-bait speculation.

    Is it censorship to remove posts of the second type? Sure, provided you're not using "censor" as an expletive or insult. To take it a step further: it's a type of censorship I will continue to engage in using my limited "flag" powers, because I don't like link-bait headlines, speculation, and thin hypotheses. I love reading good quality anti-Apple stuff, and I want to encourage you to write good quality anti-Apple stuff. But your previous article was a total waste of time, and your whinging about its removal was even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous 7:11

    I find it fascinating that you either cant or have no interest in explaining how what I said bears any resemblance to your analogy. What exactly is it that was even speculation. I am not aware of *anything* that I said that is not fact, other than my conclusion that corporate interests have too much influence over law enforcement. If you can, please point to *one* thing that I said that was incorrect or even speculative. If you disagree that corporate interests dont inappropriately impact law enforcement, then fine. But I defy you to point to anything that I said which is factually incorrect other than my conclusion which you obviously disagree with, but which is not a question of fact.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, this post was submitted to HN as well and it got killed as well: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1437324

    I've been a member of HN for a long time and greatly enjoy reading articles linked on it, but Paul Graham's authoritarian grip over the content of the front page is more than a little disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. JM: here's the list of rules for HN: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

    Anon at 7:22, Paul doesn't have any kind of authoritarian grip. This post got killed because it's a rant about things that aren't even true. Flamebait of the lowest denominator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Again, another commenter that cant seem to point out what I said that was not true. Amazing. Makes you wonder what the IQ of the typical HN reader really is.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon at 7:27: sure he does, either him or his minions (the mods). This post got killed because it brought to light the blatant pro-Apple bias on HN.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Allright so what you're saying is, your article got 10 points (a very low score it seems to me since a lot of scores are at least in the 30s), it got shoved off by articles other people found more important. They are articles at the time of writing that have [230 points. So naturally, since it got bumped off the front page and most likely ignored you believe that it was 'killed by HN'. I'm sorry sir, but I sincerely doubt that. It appears to me that, while some people found the article interesting, other people found articles they thought were interesting and bumped those ahead of yours. And if I'm horribly wrong, well, guess what? It's Paul Graham's site. He owns it. He can do whatever the hell he wants to with it. Stop complaining about the loss of free publicity.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gentleman Ryan: Look at the submissions, they have been marked "[dead]":
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1437161
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1437324

    That means you can't comment on it, can't upvote it, and the link is made inaccessible. That's very different from getting "shoved off" the front page by articles with more upvotes.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Unfortunately, my comment i just posted disappeared from this. I dunno if you can read it and I can't but I'll assume you can't. Therefore, I'll reiterate the base points.

    HN is Paul Graham's site. He can do whatever he wants with it. I doubt he did remove it, I believe it was just voted off (since it only had 10 points after all. Other articles have over 100), but if he did remove it, well, that's too bad. At least enjoy the mild free publicity it got you. And please, let's not devolve into insults as you did at 7:31. We are all gentleman here, I think we can keep it civil.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ryan,

    The article was killed. It is marked "dead". There is no dispute or debate about this fact. It is totally gone from the system. It didnt "fall off the front page", it was deleted.

    And, one last thing. HN is paul graham site. This is mine. He can do what he wants there (and he does). And I can do what I want here (and I do). The situations are exactly parallel. And so given that you are suggesting I should stop complaining, I am going to suggest that you take your own advice and stop complaining. Funny how that works.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ((I apologize for double posting. My internet isn't very good))

    I believe that I was just pointing out something wrong in your post. I was unaware I was complaining. I apologize for any fallacies I made. If you don't want my comments maybe you should turn comments off then. Have a nice evening.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Actually, I would disagree that everyone here is a gentleman.

    And given some of the thoroughly unspecific, and highly illogical criticisms, there are quite a few here that certainly are not *exhibiting* high intellectual capacity. I have not heard *one* specific criticism of the piece. Thats gotta tell you something.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hank,

    1. I'm sorry you think my comment was dumb.

    2. The fact that you consider something an "opinion piece" doesn't mean that other people might not dislike it for making big claims with little or no evidence.

    3. The merits or demerits of my assessment of your earlier piece aren't the point. The point is that there are plenty of reasons why it might have been kicked off HN that don't have anything to do with Paul Graham, or HN more generally, being unable to tolerate articles that are negative about Apple.

    4. Some things you said in your previous article which are none of (a) obvious uncontroversial truth, (b) supported by any evidence in your article, or (c) explicitly marked as speculation rather than fact: "these last few months have exposed a frightening ability of corporate America to get official law enforcement to do its bidding" (pure speculation); "in the case of a lost but quickly returned phone [...]" (demonstrably false; a considerable time elapsed before the phone was returned and it's quite clear that the person who took it, and the people who bought it from him, knew perfectly well who owned it); "what law enforcement is really doing here is creating a punishment for having exposed Apple's secret" (no, it's a punishment for having broken the law, and the relevance of their having written the things they did is that doing so *demonstrated publicly that they broke the law*). Again, you may of course disagree with my assessment of these, but the point is that (a) I flagged your article because I thought it didn't belong on HN and (b) my reason for doing so was not that it was anti-Apple; it's that I thought it was rubbish.

    5. You have still presented not a shred of evidence that your article was removed from HN for being anti-Apple. That would be because there is no such evidence.

    6. Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Depending on how broadly you define "conclusion", you can categorize anything speculative into it and define away the problem. But assuming you're arguing in good faith, here's my take on both articles:

    *

    FACTS: Gizmodo bought the phone, returned it, police conducted a raid; hackers broke the phone, told AT&T, FBI conducted a raid.

    PRIMARY CONCLUSION: big companies have too easy a time getting the police to intimidate people. (I agree with this conclusion to some degree, but my agreement doesn't make it any less speculative.)

    OTHER SPECULATION: Apple's beef was that Gizmodo wrote the article -- not with the purchase of the phone, the amount of time it took to return, the attempts to put conditions on the phone's return, or a Gizmodo editor saying something mean about Steve Jobs years ago that he secretly held a grudge about.

    *

    FACTS: you submitted a post to Hacker News, it made the front page, and was deleted.

    SPECULATIVE CONCLUSION: the post was deleted out of disagreement with the primary conclusion

    OTHER SPECULATION: you'll be banned from reading HN; pg was directly involved; your article wasn't deemed "safe for people to read".

    *

    There was plenty of speculation in both articles other than your primary conclusion. In the first article, both the facts and your speculative conclusion were old news, so the only thing it contributed was a bunch of tangential and uninteresting speculation. The second article was whining about the first. For these reasons, I consider both as of negative value to HN.

    ReplyDelete
  32. So now we get down to it. You really don't understand the different between facts and opinions. Lets go through it.

    "these last few months have exposed a frightening ability of corporate America to get official law enforcement to do its bidding" (pure speculation);”

    No, this is opinion. I am frightened. Apparently you are not. But it is certainly not speculation that I am frightened about what is happening. I promise you it is accurate. Amazing that you cant see this.

    “ "in the case of a lost but quickly returned phone [...]" (demonstrably false; a considerable time elapsed before the phone was returned and it's quite clear that the person who took it, and the people who bought it from him, knew perfectly well who owned it);”

    So we are debating what “quickly” means? 1 day vs two or three or four? I view the amount of time it took to get the phone back as “quick.” You do not. This is hardly a factual dispute.

    "what law enforcement is really doing here is creating a punishment for having exposed Apple's secret" (no, it's a punishment for having broken the law, and the relevance of their having written the things they did is that doing so *demonstrated publicly that they broke the law*). “

    Whether a law was broken is clearly a matter for debate, that, if it gets there will be determined by the courts (which I strongly doubt, at least in the case of Gizmodo). But you are clearly in no better a position than me to judge whether there was a crime here. I dont think so and you do. Again, it would be helpful if you were clear about the definition of “opinion”. You seem to have plenty of them and seem unaware that your opinions are not facts.

    “Again, you may of course disagree with my assessment of these, but the point is that (a) I flagged your article because I thought it didn't belong on HN and (b) my reason for doing so was not that it was anti-Apple; it's that I thought it was rubbish.”

    Obviously you disagreed with my opinions. And that is where your problem lies. Calling the piece “rubbish” because you disagree with the perspective (one which has been argued by *many* people besides me) is a reflection of the fact that you apparently, at least on this issue, brook no dissent. But please dont hide behind quality. You disagree with a very commonly held perspective that there was no crime on Gizmodo’s part. But the unfortunate part is that you are not honest enough to admit that your issue is just that you disagree. Try being honest.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous,

    Given your perspective on "opinion" I would strongly suggest you stay away from newspaper editorial pages, talk shows, etc. in general since they are generally "old news" and are "speculative".

    A mighty dry world you live in.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I stay away from talk shows and newspaper editorial pages because they bore the hell out of me. If that's the standard you set for yourself, you'll find your content flagged and likely removed from HN.

    >> "it is certainly not speculation that I am frightened"

    Your being frightened is fact; the ability of corporate America to get law enforcement to do its bidding is speculation. It is disingenuous of you to pretend that your own fright was the subject of that sentence. Nice dodge.

    At this point, you've ducked under or defined away any possibility for criticism. Very well; have fun with your talk-show-quality opinions, but don't be surprised when they get flagged on sites that have actual standards.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I stay away from talk shows and newspaper editorial pages because they bore the hell out of me. If that's the standard you set for yourself, you'll find your content flagged and likely removed from HN.

    On HN or not, I enjoy a fine audience. But thanks for the concern. I'll be sure to tell Paul Krugman and David Brooks about your concerns though.

    "At this point, you've ducked under or defined away any possibility for criticism.

    Nope. Only logical criticism.

    Very well; have fun with your talk-show-quality opinions, but don't be surprised when they get flagged on sites that have actual standards."

    Wow, mr. Anonymous, your kind concern is greatly appreciated. And its so refreshing to chat with someone whose not smug at all.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I don't understand what you're still arguing here. I have typically liked your articles; I found your site through HN a few weeks back, thought you made some good points, subscribed via RSS (where I saw this one as well.)

    I found your piece in my reader queue this morning, thought it roughly echoed my sentiments about it all, but with somewhat excessive sensationalism more than once.

    "The truth is that if you are just some regular schmo, and you go to the police and tell them your kid is missing, they will tell you you have to wait 24 hours [...]"

    That, and a few other remarks like it in the article, struck me as asinine- "think of the children" and a fully unrelated policy clearly instituted due to overprotective parents calling 911 when their child gets home half an hour late. There was a piece making a very similar connection back when the search warrant was breaking news - which I can only assume you read and were indirectly referencing - with a given example of a woman who tried to report missing kids that she thought her husband had taken, only to find he'd killed them several hours later.

    Tragic, horrible, worthy of an independant investigation and perhaps instituting exceptions to the 24-hour rule. Completely and utterly unrelated to the Apple/Gizmodo affair, and now to the AT&T/Goatse case.

    In any case, your article's HN post at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1436887 has several upvoted comments generally disliking its style. The top comment, with 6 points, sums it up: "Just about every anti-Apple post, even the ones targeting valid points, has been full of logic flaws/ranting."

    It's your blog, so of course you'll continue what seems to be a bit of a flamewar if you like, but allow me to put this as succinctly as possible: I've read your posts for the past few weeks, they're generally rather good. Leaping to conclusions as you do in this piece, to end on "Next thing you know I am sure I will be banned from *reading* Hacker News. I'm sure its coming" is frankly ridiculous and smacks of a knee-jerk reaction. Personally, I'd suggest updating your post to tone down the paranoia and accusations of censorship you lay at Paul Graham's feeet.

    ReplyDelete
  37. n "Next thing you know I am sure I will be banned from *reading* Hacker News. I'm sure its coming" is frankly ridiculous and smacks of a knee-jerk reaction.

    I am truly surprised that you (or anyone) would take that literally since it is obviously impossible. The idea that you would take my sarcasm and interpret what clearly is impossible in a literal sense is something I am going to have to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hacker News community didn't like YOUR article. Get over it. It was "censored" in the same way that every article ever submitted to a social news site that got voted down to 0 or below was "censored".

    ReplyDelete
  39. To clarify, HN doesn't have downvotes on articles, they have flagging. If enough people flag it (exact criteria is unknown) it will be marked "dead". This is likely what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm with Anonymous 11:57. ONE of your articles was down-rated and deleted by an online community. Blame it on censorship, your article being shit, a glitch in the Matrix, or whatever you like. Seriously, get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous, 1:46AM

    Last time I looked this blog had *my* name on it. That means I say what I want. If it bothers you, blame it on your poor intellect, your bad genes, a glitch in the matrix, or whatever you like. Seriously, get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wow Hank, I'd hate to put up with people who spend this much energy being haters for an article that was pretty simple and on point. Your story was totally blocked and that's ridiculous.

    The original article was interesting enough to go up and stay up. I mean come on the top story right now is that dustincurtis' posterous account was hacked. (By trivial means at that)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Hank,

    Thanks for posting. I've been enjoying your feed for a while but I think this is the first time I've commented.

    I do think your original post was interesting, and is totally on-topic for HN. It seems like some other folks disagree.

    I'm not sure about all the facts...

    - Did the Hackers actually download vast amounts of personal information?

    - Is that illegal?

    - Was the iPhone theft a large enough scale crime to warrant search?

    - How long did Gizmodo keep the phone?

    - What were the terms of the so-called "extortion"?

    If the answers to these questions reveal that the crimes were petty crimes, than your fears will be shown as true. These corporations and cops are abusing their power to target people. If they turn out to be serious crimes, then your fears... if not unwarranted, will be at least momentarily relieved*.

    So this is obviously an interesting topic for debate, and for that reason I wouldn't flag it for removal.

    I think honestly, your main point... that there are disparities in access to police, and they are spreading closer to the tech world... is a great one.

    I think that point just got lost a little in the details of your post.

    There are certainly some murky situations with possibly inflated police involvement... But I think the interesting, timely question your post raises is not whether the police were right or wrong, or whether the specific companies are good or bad, but how many of these have to happen before we start to take this seriously?

    I don't think that came across to the HN audience quite clearly enough, unfortunately, and they knee-jerked to the details of your post and you got knocked off.

    It's too bad. I hope it doesn't discourage you from participating in the HN community in the future.

    ==
    * I want to add that I think a lot of the HN community is probably oblivious to the fact that unequal access to law enforcement resources is an old and very well established phenomenon. I tend to err on the side of assuming that the cops don't give a shit about fair distribution of resources.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Erik,
    Great comments and questions, and exactly the kind of discussion we should be having.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is amazing to me, you're assuming so much out of an action you don't know the dynamics behind.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @andy,

    Nope. I just know the *ridiculous* result. And I know that one person controls the dynamics. No one can know the dynamics since they are entirely opaque. But I dont need to understand a dogs intestinal system to know that I dont like him doing his business on the floor.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Aren't you shooting at your own credibility?

    Andrew Breitbart will thank you for this:

    But I dont need to understand a dogs intestinal system to know that I dont like him doing his business on the floor.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The cargo cult behind Hacker News *definitely* censors things they don't like .. I found out about this just last night, when I posted a comment criticizing the "What you didn't know about Reddit" aticle. Within minutes, I got a whomping from the down-vote crowd (who don't seem to think that I should be critical of their Techno Angels) and my karma went into the triple-digit negatives.

    I was trying to respond to the thread and participate in the dialog, but then I got this "You are posting too fast" message .. for 8 hours. So someone there at HN had set my account to be pretty much useless in the dialog.

    So, I created another account in order to participate in the conversation, but what do you know .. all of those comments have been deleted.

    So, if you think HN is impartial, you're really fooling yourself. For sure, anything that does not jive with the mobthink lock-step that the cargo cult'ers want for us all, will not survive long in that comment system.

    HN has now gone off my list of sites to check, regularly. It seems really much more of a cargo cult than anything useful, community wise, and the mobthink is atrocious, to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I came upon this blog after I was frustrated with what just happened to me. I just typed in Google that 'Hacker News Sucks'. After reading, I thought I'll share what happened with me.

    I had posted about my electronics web shop there to get some constructive criticism. It seemed to go well, got many likes as well. But the likes came all too soon I guess, and the post got killed with the assumption that I was making new accounts and doing the 'likes' and comments myself! Heights of assumption!

    It seems several of my friends were excited and created a new account JUST to comment there. So this genuine viral-ness of the whole post was assumed to be forged by me. Now all my attempts to get decent opinions turned into one big negative experience.

    Folks there are not at all pragmatic. Everything is based on wild theories. HN for me is now dead. Not looking there anymore.

    (btw, the post mentioned above is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1663112)

    ReplyDelete