There's no hyperbole in the comment. It can still be a safe haven for extremists even if most of the users are not.

An even if they didn't agree with the sentiment, many or even most of those on the platform were perfectly happy to fraternise with those that did.

Should we still have due process in the external world? After all, the United States is a "safe haven" for people who talk about killing pretty much every minority group under the sun.

> the world is a little more complex than "privacy at all costs."

The line doesn't have to do with the infringement of privacy, it's about whether that infringement is being done by publicly sanctioned power, or the whim of the arbitrary, domineering power of private (tech) actors. Elizabeth Anderson has written quite well on this topic in "Private Government."

That applies equally to the rest of the internet.

So let's start by looking at Hacker News. Where on HN can we see people plotting mass executions like that?

In the initial post about the Capitol being shut down,t here were people saying that everyone who broke into the capitol building needed to be tried for treason and executed, or saying that the police should have opened fire and killed anyone who broke in. The mods removed the comments, but HN isn't some paragon of virtue that isn't susceptible to the same calls for violence as any other site.

Mods removing those comments sort of proves that HN isn't a safe haven for the calls for violence.

Those comments and posts are removed from Parler as well: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-...

No, not really. It comes down to how you define "safe haven" - if violent groups are actively moderated and banned, then I don't think it can be called a safe haven. How does the rest of the internet equate to Parler in this respect?

I don't know what people think, we can't read their minds. All I know is if you wanted to find people who want mass executions in the US, Parler would be a safe place to find them, based on what we do know about them.

What are "people like you"?

Facebook and Twitter have millions of people who want mass executions for all kinds of groups, a quick trip into Muslim areas of both services and you'll find moderate and right-wing versions that want execution for LGBTQ+ people. You can find the same desire for marginalization and extermination of other groups. Not every language and dialect has a huge team of moderators that review content and take the appropriate punitive action against malicious users.

I have a Parler account. I have a GAB account. I make accounts on all new social media platforms and communications services. Everyone should. Because you have no idea what platform might be the next Facebook, or which one is going to be the next MySpace.

Parler will not be the next Twitter.

here's nearly 1% of (4mm estimated active) upvoting something similar though: /r/ParlerWatch/comments/ktwmje/this_is_the_type_of_free_speech_parler_accepts/

That statement—while absolutely and undeniably abhorrent—is not even remotely calling for mass executions, or even mass violence, against anybody.

But for the people that did, it was absolutely a haven.

How do you know?

We have the data. That would be easy to prove what percentage of active users called for violence both in public and private messages.

I hear this a lot, but it makes no logical sense to me. I see a site that is (in)famous for being full of self-proclaimed right-wing "patriots" who are calling for violence against people due to political beliefs.

Someone then decide to associate with these people by joining the site. They may not personally post messages calling for violence, but are now associated with them. And the response is: well sure I'm in the group but I don't actually agree with any of this.

Then my question is: why did you join in the first place? If you don't agree with the most vocal 1% (I SERIOUSLY doubt that number after spending time perusing the site), and you don't denounce what they're saying, what do you expect others to think? We're supposed to read your mind that you're part of a "silent dissent" and just joined the site because...?

People were banned from facebook and twitter for calling for violence, if you switched sites specifically to follow that person I have a REAL tough time believing you don't support them.

Have to been on Reddit, specifically /r/politics? There are calls to violence all the time. Nobody bats an eye because it's calls to violence against the "bad guys."

I assume you've got some citations for that, right? I have been to r/politics and people get banned pretty quickly for calling for violence. I just went through the top 20 threads, and there isn't a single call for violence to be found.

Indeed. When evaluating reddit threads and content, its important to distinguish between highly upvoted and visible content, and content that was downvoted or deleted to oblivion. A -1000 call for violence in one subreddit is not equivalent to a +1000 call for violence in another.

Parler is banning those posts as well: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-... The point is that there are bad actors and bad voices across these platforms, including those that are "okay" like Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter.

But they aren't. You can go there right now and find posts calling for violence. They have no automated system and have no plans to implement one which is why they were kicked off AWS. From the AWS letter they were kind enough to post:

>Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t “feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform.” This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts. This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you. Given the unfortunate events that transpired this past week in Washington, D.C., there is serious risk that this type of content will further incite violence.

Except you can't go there now, because it's been pulled from AWS.

I am not going to go through and find some examples but there have been calls for violence there. I remember the entire Sandman period of time with many people saying he "what a punchable face"....

Edit to add: Also what happens behind doors on invite only subreddits?

Edit to add further: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitPoliticsSays/comments/bmtdqb/ch...

CHapoTrapHouse got banned but....CTH is invite only.

There is a German saying that goes something like "if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you've got a table with 11 Nazis.”

Twitter had a policy against misgendering and had locked her out of her account several times before banning her. If this is something Meghan thinks is worth getting banned over, that's on her. Most people just don't care what pronoun somebody wants to be called, so the non-asshole thing to do is to just use their preferred pronoun.

> so the non-asshole thing to do is to just use their preferred pronoun.

I agree. I completely agree. I myself call the transgender people in my life by their preferred pronoun.

I also find compelling someone's speech by threat of banning them to be disgusting. Especially when there's a block button available. If you don't like what someone's saying, you can literally ignore everything they say.

Herein lies the conundrum for me - for, what seems to be, an increasingly large group of people, its not enough to simply stop interaction with people they don't like, those people have to be removed from the landscape altogether. I just do not see this ending in any positive way.

Blocking does not scale if you interact with a lot of people (see many famous examples of celebrities quitting Twitter over harrassment), which is something Twitter would obviously want its users to do. To make it easier, it makes absolute sense to me for Twitter to enforce clearly defined civility rules.

> Blocking does not scale if you interact with a lot of people (see many famous examples of celebrities quitting Twitter over harrassment), which is something Twitter would obviously want its users to do.

This seems to be viewed as a sort of "bug" of scale; I see it as a feature. If you become extremely popular and your voice is amplified, you're going to have to contend with being criticized and scrutinized to a greater degree.

I fall into the Sam Harris & Joe Rogan Greater Internet Reply Theory: "Don't read the comments. You can't read the comments." Jamie Foxx said it best on why you don't need to read them, "Sometimes the comments'll get in that ass."

I will simply never agree with removing someone for the content of their speech. I do think that you eventually reach a point of harassment (for example, if you reply to every single tweet of someone you don't like with, "You're a cunt."), but by-and-large, a lot of the "problems" simply result in people not being able to ignore others, either by using a button on a website, or just by sheer willpower of not looking at a comment.

Her speech was not compelled. She was removed from twitter. She wasn't unpersoned. She isn't in a gulag. Stop hyperbolizing and your concerns get a lot less concerning.

> Her speech was not compelled.

"Don't say this thing, or we'll ban you forever from the platform."

If I walk up to you and say, "Don't say this thing, or me and my 9 associates here will punch you in the face," that's compulsion. Period.

That you're equating being removed from twitter with being physically threatened is telling. They aren't comparable. A physical I threat of violence is compelling, yes, in a way that being removed from a website isn't. She could post the same thing on HN, right now. So compelling!

Good. It should be telling. I'm all-in on free speech. I support the right of everyone, anywhere, to say whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as it adheres to the First Amendment.

Chomsky said it best: "If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

And you're welcome to hold that view. But conflating threats with 1st amendment protected action is dumb.

And yes, Twitter, under the first amendment, is free to associate with whomever they want (or to refuse to associate with them)! Twitter isn't compelling Meghan Murphy to do anything anymore than than twitter is, at this moment, compelling me to give them my wallet.

On the other hand, if you said "Give me your wallet, or me and my 9 associates here will punch you in the face," you'd be committing a crime.

That's the difference between being kicked off twitter and punching someone in the face. One of them is a crime. No matter how purely you uphold the principle of free speech, it doesn't make sense to compare someone who doesn't share those values to a criminal.

> A saying from a nation with collective psychological trauma of over 100 years. No thanks.

Well, they do know what happens when you let Nazis and their apologists/enablers get a toehold in public discourse, so maybe they actually have something useful to contribute to the discussion.

According to Wikipedia, there are 4,000,000 active Parler users.

You think you can assert with confidence that there are not 40,000 people with Parler accounts who want mass executions?

I'd like to think you're right, but I'm not as confident as you are.

Not after watching someone beat a Capitol Police officer to death with a flag pole flying the American Flag. People think they are defending their country against evil. Like me, apparently.

How many QAnon followers are there? How many believe the most outrageous claims? I would not be surprised if 40,000 do. Would you?

FWIW Wikipedia lists that number of users as of November 2020. It had a huge influx of users in December and obviously January, to the point that it was number 1 in the App Store before it got pulled. So the 4MM user number is probably very off.

The data is public now—if you're so certain, go find me a single post on Parler calling for mass executions.

> The data is public now—if you're so certain, go find me a single post on Parler calling for mass executions.

Easily done:

https://imgur.com/gallery/nHb2lO8

Some of these are Verified users - Parler has their Drivers License and Social Security number, and yet they still felt secure in brazenly violating the law like this.

Hey, spoiler alert for people regarding that link -- there's some very strong, graphically violent language. Don't click if you're not in a good head space at the moment.

i think its good to see it so people understand that there are literally millions of other americans that actively want them dead

I pushed back in one direction, and now I'll push back in the other.

I do not think "literally millions" do. That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

I am saddened by extremists like this, on all sides.

I want to win a tough but fair political fight, and I think that's what almost everyone in America wants, too. I'm sorry some people think 60 court cases were simultaneously wrongly decided, but I don't feel sympathy for anyone who thinks the next step is to storm the Capitol.

I didn't say it shouldn't be posted; just a warning to be prepared for what you're going to see.

Sorry, I should have clarified: find me a post that wasn't moderated away. Lin Wood's post was: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-...

Unfortunately the service is down, but I would imagine that other post was removed as well.

No, I do not accept that you are "clarifying." You are intentionally moving the goal-posts.

The question we were discussing was whether or not many of the USERS are calling for mass executions.

I provided ample evidence, despite your "find me a single post" challenge.

Now we might want to engage in a different discussion, about whether Parler was correctly moderating that content. But that is not a "clarification," that's a new topic.

I do not have access to information about how long content was allowed to remain before it was removed. Do you?

Since a "single post" has been provided by someone now, it would be nice to see you give them the decency and acknowledge it. There are so many comments here, and they all read in the same way, "well, what about..." and "show me proof" — only for someone to actually go and spend the time to respond, and then be ignored quietly. Discussions here (political ones) feel so childish, I wish we'd be better as a community on those.

Personally, when I discuss politics online I don't expect the other person to acknowledge anything. My audience is all the people on the fence lurking and reading and forming opinions on the topic.

Agreed.

I will admit that it's draining, talking to one user who keeps moving the goal-posts.

And I will then say that I think it's their intention to drain people like me.

So I try to shrug it off and keep refuting arguments with the evidence they pretend they will be convinced by.

As one (non-American) lurker who is reading this thread to try and get a handle on just what the hell is going on over there, thank you for putting the energy in, and please don't give up.

It's clear that you are arguing in good faith and the other person who keeps moving the goalposts and demanding more proof is not, and moreover it's very enlightening to see this scenarios played out nearly identically whenever I lurk and follow a discussion between the left and right in US politics.

Unfortunately, irrational behavior applies to both sides but on different issues. I saw it first hand in terms of COVID and my liberal friends. They took the most negative possible outlook and then called you an unscientific idiot if you didn't think it was the only possible outcome. COVID has a 5% mortality rate (even when reasonable data indicated 0.5%). A vaccine is impossible (even when multiple companies said they had promising candidates). Immunity doesn't exist (even when everything except a few reports said it did). And so on.

Yes. In many cases, the only "winning" move is to say what you have to say and then step back.

You can't usually "win" the argument, just your own time.

I have. I don't typically sit on HN and refresh my own comments to see people responding in real time.

These are not credible death threats.

The following was requested and provided, please stop changing the goal post when you're called out.

> single post

> on Parler

> calling for mass executions

You’re replying to someone else.

I still think these are not legit death threats by the content of it. Saying things like “a good commie is a dead a commie” might be tasteless but it’s far from being a serious thing. No one is killing communists in the US.

I'm not sure if you saw my reply on a separate part of this thread:

https://imgur.com/gallery/nHb2lO8

Those are legit death threats. Including from a lawyer associated with the President.

> “Will you and several hundred more go with me to D.C. and fight our way into the Congress and arrest every Democrat who has participated in this coup?” [Marshall, Arkansas Police] Chief Lang Holland posted Friday on Parler, a right-wing messaging site. “We may have to shoot and kill many of the Communist B.L.M. and ANTIFA Democrat foot soldiers to accomplish this!!!”

> “Death to all Marxist Democrats. Take no prisoners leave no survivors!!” Chief Holland added.

How would this have to be modified to become a "legitimate death threat"?

For anybody reasonable? Not at all.

Data, evidence? The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone not that the other 99% happen to be listening. Parler was lax in policing that 1%.

And thus the private messages/videos of all should be leaked by vigilantes?

I am equally concerned about what happened about the Capitol, but the actions taken by tech in response are unacceptable to me.

You just jumped to a conclusion. In another comment in this article I specifically said only messages that are related to the commission of a crime should be released and everything else should be deleted.

> The threat is in giving the fascist terrorist 1% a microphone

The problem with fascist terrorists is not their rhetoric, it's their violence. Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action and everyone else gets to show that their ideas are horribly flawed.

It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans?

>It's amusing to think that people seriously believe there are huge swathes of people just ripe to become neo-nazis because someone gave a rousing speech or wrote some tweets - how do you manage not to succumb to these rhetorical titans?

Given that exactly this happened 90 years ago and caused the deaths of tens of millions, people are needless to say cautious.

You can't have Hitler without the Treaty of Versailles. He was just a catalyst to an incredibly punitive and emasculating treaty that scarred the psychology of the German people.

If it hadn't been Hitler, it would have eventually been someone else.

War, maybe. Genocide of the Jews? Seems less likely as an inevitability.

I'm going to side with the interpretations of history that are a tad more complex than "he gave a rousing speech, hence, genocide", and there are plenty of them.

Yet you seem to side with the less complex interpretation of current event being "he gave a rousing speech"

That's my opponent's position, not mine. When creating an opposing argument it's almost certain you will have to state their argument (in whole or in part) to produce a refutation.

> Allow them to speak their mind and you lower their need for violent action

That may be true, or that may not be true. Has there been any research on this?

History is replete with examples

You're purposefully being reductionist about this. People having their brains hit with racist or violent rhetoric over a long period of time will be changed by that. They human brain adapts to it's environment, expecting certain inputs and if it's receiving /pol light on Twitter then it starts to expect it.

On top of that, it's only a matter of time before they're linked to one of the many .win site that sprang up after Twitter purged the_donald and the Qanon people.

And again, people have been moved to violence and facism in human history, that's not difficult to find.

> You're purposefully being reductionist about this.

I'm really not, and I'd prefer if you started off responding to me by not (mis)characterising my intentions. I'm 100% sincere in my support of free speech and stand 100% behind my comment.

> People having their brains hit with racist or violent rhetoric over a long period of time will be changed by that

Yes, they will, which is why it's good to allow every voice and every kind of viewpoint a chance to be expressed and hence challenged. Unless you think that echo chambers are a good thing?

> people have been moved to violence and facism in human history, that's not difficult to find

Did they occur in places with high amounts of censorship or free speech? The Holocaust wasn't caused simply by one of Hitler's speeches, for example, it was also (among other things) primed by the rampant anti-semitic prejudice that came from the pulpit every Sunday for hundreds of years - which was unchallengable due to blasphemy laws.

Another "win" for the repression of speech someone in power doesn't like, eh?

Parler was an echo chamber.

> which was unchallengable due to blasphemy laws

There's basically no support for this claim in any literature I can find. Care to cite a historian?

Parler was not an echo chamber by design.

> There's basically no support for this claim in any literature I can find. Care to cite a historian?

Tell me the literature you looked in first, because I want to know which books can miss such basic facts, and hence what I should avoid. The history of Europe is soaked in blood provoked by differences over what can be said by religious people, to religious people, and of them and their views. Entire wars have been fought over it - are you going to tell me there are historians that are credible who'll claim Europe was a land of toleration? Locke wrote his letter of toleration specifically because of the widespread intolerance and bloodshed.

If you use the word heresy instead of blasphemy and your search may prove more fruitful. It was effect in Europe from the Edict of Thessalonica, which brought the first execution, and in some countries hasn't been repealed from law. If you look up the last people executed under these laws you may even find what they said to deserve execution.

You appear to no longer be claiming that blasphemy laws were a direct contributor to the holocaust.

Yes, widespread antisemitism was a contributor to the holocaust, but that wasn't primarily or even really particularly due to blasphemy laws. Taking anti-Semitism in pre WWII Europe and blaming it, in any significant part, on a lack of free speech, is not something that has any mainstream historic support. It's weird historical revisionism that's honestly a bit uncomfortable. (for example, Germany blasphemy laws pre-WWII, as written, actually protected Judaism)

> You appear to no longer be claiming that blasphemy laws were a direct contributor to the holocaust.

I'm claiming that they were a necessary condition. Am I changing my position? No. I've no idea how you came to that.

> Yes, widespread antisemitism was a contributor to the holocaust

We agree.

> but that wasn't primarily or even really particularly due to blasphemy laws

In which free speech zone did a similar situation occur? Your statement is pure speculation. At least try attribute things to conditions that are present or have something to compare with to show the contrast.

> blaming it, in any significant part, on a lack of free speech, is not something that has any mainstream historic support.

I'd like to know what these mysterious "mainstream" historians think was behind the anti-semitism that was so rife in Christian Europe for so long. Where did Nazis get the idea of blood libel from? What ever could be the reason…?

On a less sarcastic note, I hope they don't blame the Jews for their predicament, as the only other explanation would be that the hatred arose from nothing but some rousing speeches by Hitler. That to me would seem incredibly childish a notion and not in the slightest supported by the accounts of prominent Nazi party members of the time but at least it's better than victim blaming.

Of course, we could rely again on looking at the conditions present and what effects correlate - what happens when blasphemy laws are present, and what happens when freedom of conscience (free speech + freedom of religion) is present - does support for Christianity go down? Does anti-semitism rise or fall? Is this consistent across the world? Is the same true for Europe?

> for example, Germany blasphemy laws pre-WWII, as written, actually protected Judaism

On the one hand there are the hate speech laws that were in place for a few years, and on the other is the rampant anti-semitism for at least hundreds of years prior (supported by blasphemy laws), and to top it all off the hate speech laws didn't even work! On the contrary, they contributed to the rise of the National Socialists.

In both cases a lack of free speech resulted in a negative outcome. Yet, you seem to be against free speech. Maybe it's your comfort levels, and I agree, that really is a problem with free speech.

I'll take it over the alternatives though.

We got damn close here in the US with the Japanese internment. So speech suppression it clearly isn't necessary to imprison an entire ethnic group for political reasons.

> Your statement is pure speculation.

So is yours.

> and to top it all off the hate speech laws didn't even work!

I'm not talking about hate speech laws. I'm talking about blasphemy laws. Like I said you seem to not have a particularly strong knowledge of the actual history here, hence my request for a historian who supports your position.

> blood libel from

Funny you bring that up. Guess who propogates blood libel conspiracies today? Q-anon, a conspiracy theory group that overlaps with the people who stormed the capitol building. So you see, even with free speech you can have large groups of people believing absolute nonsense.

> I'm not talking about hate speech laws.

You also wrote this:

> for example, Germany blasphemy laws pre-WWII, as written, actually protected Judaism

You'll have to forgive my assumption that you were referring to hate speech laws, though I'm not sure what else you would be referring to in the context of this debate. I'm sure you're also clear that the Weimar's hate speech laws protected Judaism and were used against prominent National Socialists.[1]

> > Your statement is pure speculation.

> So is yours.

No, pure speculation occurs when you invoke an alternate timeline. I've speculated based on the existent timeline and factors therein. Yours is akin to fantasy, mine is a deduction. Mine is an answer to "how did that happen?" whereas yours is a "what would happen if…?"

There's no would in my speculation.

> We got damn close here in the US with the Japanese internment. So speech suppression it clearly isn't necessary to imprison an entire ethnic group for political reasons.

Speech was suppressed during wartime. From[2]:

> The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover emergency authority to censor all news and control all communications in and out of the country.

The Supreme Court also upheld the government's right to the internment (among other things) because SCOTUS has previously and consistently ruled that things are different at wartime, which I largely disagree with, along with the internment.

Not that free speech ultimately protects anyone like a magic amulet, it simply increases the likelihood of protection. You and I will no doubt both wear a seatbelt when driving but neither of us will claim it will definitely stop us flying out of our seats, there are more conditions to consider to make that claim.

Which makes this all the more amusing to me:

> Like I said you seem to not have a particularly strong knowledge of the actual history here, hence my request for a historian who supports your position.

Well, I guess I'll have to wait for you to bring forth the materials you say you checked, and perhaps for you to find out what was actually happening during WWII in the US.

> > blood libel from

> Funny you bring that up.

The only source of possible irony relies on misconception and tribalism so we'll have to disagree on its amusing quality. I brought up the blood libel because these are the consequence of competing Abrahamic religions that took hold over large areas and disallow speech that contradicts doctrine, doctrine that includes anti-semitism. Where's the Jew hatred in groups with no religious affiliation - do you find much anti-semitism among Buddhists and Hindus?

> So you see, even with free speech you can have large groups of people believing absolute nonsense.

When did I claim otherwise? Free speech only makes discernment of truth more likely, it does not guarantee it. Rather like having the best lab with the best scientists and best practice methods for your procedures, it will not guarantee you discoveries but it increases the likelihood versus a garage with a self taught scientist who is making it up as they go along, but some discoveries may still happen there too. To think that freedom of speech is the medicine for all ill would be to engage in fallacious thinking.[3]

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...

[2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1597/free-speech-du...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

There's a huge degree of just outright horseshit here.

I've been browsing /pol/ for years, hell almost decades. Its a great place to go to get an idea of just how fringe certain elements of society are becoming. I was actually actively browsing when QAnon was making his posts there.

I thought they were just as ridiculous and far-fetched then as I do now. People become radicalized largely because some condition in their life is lacking. For every single successful mechanical engineer that joins ISIS, there's 99 out-of-work coal miners and factory workers who storm the American capital.

Most people who have everything in their life going great don't end up extremists.

I doubt most of the people who stormed the Capitol were out of work coal miners and factory workers. Which is not to say they didn’t have things going badly in their lives, that describes a lot of people.

To quote a violent rioter screaming at the police on January 6th, "We're the business owners of America, and we don't have your back anymore!"

I watched lawyers, doctors and owners of IT companies attack the Capitol.

There are very few struggling coal miners who can afford to fly into DC during the week along with hundreds of dollars in riot gear in order to spend a few days rioting.

I think this is relevent a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

This is often brought up, mistakenly, as support for restricting speech based on speech alone when it says no such thing.

Popper draws a clear distinction between those who will have intolerant views but do not engage in violence, and those who do engage in violence. It is only the latter, in Popper's view, that must be restricted.

I'm not the one making the positive claim: if people are so certain there were calls for mass executions on Parler, they should demonstrate it.