Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Ringtone]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Nope.

We already have reasonable limits on free speech. Slander, "fire in crowded theater", harassment - that kind of thing - are reasonably well defined. The last thing we want is a "Ministry of Truth", whereby the party in charge slams its vision of reality down our throats.

I'm not suggesting we have any government agency deciding what is true or not. What I'm suggesting is organizations that amply and spread messages such as social media sites, use their discretion to limit the spread of misinformation which if followed would be a danger to public safety, health, or security. Long before the Internet came along when we depended on newspapers for news, editors use their judgement as what was fit for print and what was not. The same should apply to social media.

The same does apply to social media already. How do you figure it doesn't?

 

[Flopper]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.

If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd

54% of teens get their news from social media and they are certainly not all stupid. In few years, they will be running this country. If in 1776, every single person in the colonies including, every race, every religion, every loyalist to crown, and every mentally derange person had the capability to share every thought and everything they have herd to every other person, I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.

 

[HenryBHough]

The Democrat party cannot achieve their full dictatorship so long as any free speech is allowed.

Then The Democrat Party will be liquidated for exercising any free speech at all because their Chinese Masters are less tolerant of spoken words than are they.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.

If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd

54% of teens get their news from social media and they are certainly not all stupid. In few years, they will be running this country. If in 1776, every single person in the colonies including, every race, every religion, every loyalist to crown, and every mentally derange person had the capability to share every thought and everything they have herd to every other person, I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.

Woa you're going off the deep end here

 

[Flopper]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Nope.

We already have reasonable limits on free speech. Slander, "fire in crowded theater", harassment - that kind of thing - are reasonably well defined. The last thing we want is a "Ministry of Truth", whereby the party in charge slams its vision of reality down our throats.

I'm not suggesting we have any government agency deciding what is true or not. What I'm suggesting is organizations that amply and spread messages such as social media sites, use their discretion to limit the spread of misinformation which if followed would be a danger to public safety, health, or security. Long before the Internet came along when we depended on newspapers for news, editors use their judgement as what was fit for print and what was not. The same should apply to social media.

The same does apply to social media already. How do you figure it doesn't?

When I say social media, I'm including message boards such as this, blogs, and all other sites that allow posts from the public to the public. Many of these sites do not outlaw much of any anything and most of those that do not enforce their rules. Facebook is only one I know of that actually has the rules and enforces them to any extent all.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.

And when it effects others? Like blatant lies about elections? Misinformation about vaccinations. When it starts effecting peoples' lives in a negative way or undermines democratic institutions, then something has to be done.

 

[Flopper]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
That is a fact.
On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
That, to me, is worse than the internet.

Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..

People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.

Yes, you can sue a person on Internet that spreads false information if:

• You can show what was posted actually caused you personal damages that you quantify in dollars.
• You can determine their real identity
• You can prove that they actually did post the information
• You can prove that what they posted is actually false

In other words, Your chance of winning the lawsuit is about zero.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
That is a fact.
On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
That, to me, is worse than the internet.

Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..

People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.

Yes, you can sue a person on Internet that spreads false information if:

• You can show what was posted actually caused you personal damages that you quantify in dollars.
• You can determine their real identity
• You can prove that they actually did post the information
• You can prove that what they posted is actually false

In other words, Your chance of winning the lawsuit is about zero.

Oh please you can sue a ham and cheese sandwich

 

[dblack]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
That is a fact.
On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
That, to me, is worse than the internet.

Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..

People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.

Yes, you can sue a person on Internet that spreads false information if:

• You can show what was posted actually caused you personal damages that you quantify in dollars.
• You can determine their real identity
• You can prove that they actually did post the information
• You can prove that what they posted is actually false

In other words, Your chance of winning the lawsuit is about zero.

By what estimation? In many, if not most, cases, all of the above can be established.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment [sic], but because the people will demand it.

We've already seen a clear demonstration of what happens when any power is allowed to define what constitutes “dangerous misinformation”, to censor it, and to punish people for communicating it.

Of course, in typical Orwellian style, you're calling for censorship and suppression, for media to be controlled, in order to prevent media from being controlled.

 

[Flopper]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home. If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.

View attachment 513663

Correct, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the doctrine of freedom of speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as social media and their subscribers.

As private entities, social media are at complete liberty to determine who will or will not participate

Social media cannot ‘violate’ freedom of speech; social media have neither the power nor authority to limit or preempt speech.

The crux of problem is not the individual that creates the misinformation. With a system of communications that connects billions of people, most being anonymous, there is no way to stop that from occurring. The problem is the repeating and modifying of that information as it moves around the internet. Those that control social media have the power to limit the spread. They just need the incentive to do so.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home. If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.

View attachment 513663

Correct, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech; the doctrine of freedom of speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as social media and their subscribers.

As private entities, social media are at complete liberty to determine who will or will not participate

Social media cannot ‘violate’ freedom of speech; social media have neither the power nor authority to limit or preempt speech.

The crux of problem is not the individual that creates the misinformation. With a system of communications that connects billions of people, most being anonymous, there is no way to stop that from occurring. The problem is the repeating and modifying of that information as it moves around the internet. Those that control social media have power to limit the spread. They just need the incentive to do so.

So your saying it's a monopoly

 

[Flopper]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Honestly Flopper - the internet has no less misinformation than the entire news industry.
That is a fact.
On the internet, most people at least look at information with a degree of skepticism... however there is still nearly 40% of our population that believes what the media tells them.
That, to me, is worse than the internet.

Thats a horrible comparison. On the internet any fucking whack job can post information. At least with the media they are held to accountability and can get their asses sued for spreading false information just like Faux did..

People can get sued for spreading false information on the internet.

Yes, you can sue a person on Internet that spreads false information if:

• You can show what was posted actually caused you personal damages that you quantify in dollars.
• You can determine their real identity
• You can prove that they actually did post the information
• You can prove that what they posted is actually false

In other words, Your chance of winning the lawsuit is about zero.

By what estimation? In many, if not most, cases, all of the above can be established.

Of course it's possible. You just might be able to find out my true identity. And if you're very lucky you might be able to prove that I actually wrote the material and not my wife son or daughter or any one else that has access to my computer. And you might be able to prove what financial damages you suffered as result of my post. However, what you can't do is get any money out me if I'm broke. Libel is a civil case thus there is no punishment. It's just about money and if I have no money you get nothing. No lawyer would take the case unless I was wealthy which I am not, thus all trial expense would fall on you.

 

[surada]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

There have always been limits on free speech.

 

[Flopper]

As a starter, the media needs to label news as news and opinion as such. Of course, a lot more needs to be done, exactly what that is, I have no idea but we have to begin somewhere, because this nation cannot stand if we don't fix this.

And the media are at liberty to do that if they so desire - but the government has no place compelling them to do so through force of law.

I agree, however, both goverment, private and public organizations can certainly apply pressure which can be just as effective as legislation.

 

[EvMetro]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

Commies are all for censorship. Without censorship, commies can't exist. Every thread on this site that discusses censorship is packed with lefties defending their precious censorship.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home. If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.

View attachment 513663

ever hear of a monopoly?

Ever hear of MySpace? They WERE a big deal and now their gone. Nothing is permanent about anything. If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out? Reagan would be embarrassed.

Ever hear of USMB?

I don't find any rule on USMB that restricts posting dangerous misinformation.

What who considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

The problem is that some entity would have to be given the authority to decide what is/is not information vs misinformation and the authority to act on that opinion. Censorship.
Each individual must have the freedom to decide for themselves what truths or lies they are willing to believe.

And when it effects others? Like blatant lies about elections? Misinformation about vaccinations. When it starts effecting peoples' lives in a negative way or undermines democratic institutions, then something has to be done.

You mean the lie that Biden won an honest election? Thought you liked that lie.

 

[Flopper]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

We don't need the fucking government telling us what we can and can't say.

If people are stupid enough to believe what they read on Facebook then IMO that's just evolution's way of culling the herd

54% of teens get their news from social media and they are certainly not all stupid. In few years, they will be running this country. If in 1776, every single person in the colonies including, every race, every religion, every loyalist to crown, and every mentally derange person had the capability to share every thought and everything they have herd to every other person, I think the 1st amendment would look a tot different.

Woa you're going off the deep end here

I don't think so. If the founders had seen the almost unspeakable internet pornography children are exposed to today under the guise of freedom of speech, the inciting of riots, and misinformation sickening and killing people, they probably would have ban the internet. The point being, the founders wrote the constitution based on the world as it was then.

 

[Flopper]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

IMO its not a freedom of speech issue. If you break my rules while in my home I reserve the right to kick your ass out of my home. If you want freedom of speech on the internet start your own platform.

View attachment 513663

ever hear of a monopoly?

Ever hear of MySpace? They WERE a big deal and now their gone. Nothing is permanent about anything. If it’s such a problem, why haven’t the entrepreneurs on the right done anything about it or are the courts just an easy way out? Reagan would be embarrassed.

Ever hear of USMB?

I don't find any rule on USMB that restricts posting dangerous misinformation.

What who considers to be "dangerous misinformation"? One man's "dangerous misinformation" is another man's great and shining truth. Who decides?

That decision should be made by the people and enforced by the people not the government. The American people have the power to force social media to control the spread of misinformation and lies.