Dynadot

Social Network Gab.com being threatened by GoDaddy: 24 hours to transfer or suspension

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

domainguy50

Established Member
Impact
185
backstory: Gab is a social network alternative to twitter. their selling point is free speech (all speech is welcome, including what you believe might be hate speech.) which is basically is the first amendment. no unlawful material is allowed, but virtually any speech is. recently they purchased the "gab com" domain for $220k.

this site is very controversial as a result, with mainstream media outlets claiming it is popular with nazi and anti-semite messages. the site has 800,000 users and has experienced modest growth recently so it really isnt all bad hate speech. regardless, those disgusting messages on the site by some users are also lawful no matter how distasteful they are. as a result of these media attacks, (and the recent revelation that the synagogue shooter in pittsburgh yesterday had an active gab profile) gab is being unfairly targeted by smear campaigns online reporting the site as "a hate speech site" via email to gab's service providers.

gabs host (microsoft) revoked its contract with gab a few months ago

gabs payment providers (paypal and stripe) just revoked their services

just a few minutes ago, godaddy has said they will stop working with gab:
(i cant post the image or link idk why)
"BREAKING: Godaddy is threatening to suspend our domain (which is worth six figures) if we do not transfer to a new provider by tomorrow. This is madness."

the complexity of the situation is compounded by the fact that Gab is on a payment plan to fully own the domain since they recently purchased it. the broker/escrow agent control this which makes it even more difficult for the company to transfer to a new registrar by EOD tomorrow.

I understand that Godaddy is a private business and its clauses may allow it to do this, but this seems extreme overreaction. "24 hours to transfer or else" is a very menacing way of doing business.

-if you were in charge of gab what would you do? create your own payment processor, host, and DNS? they got deplatformed quickly... i guess they could try to get an offshore Hosting company or invest in native hosting.

-what is the most "free speech" friendly DNS provider there is?

-is it fair for internet infrastructure companies to de-platform a small upstart social network because of controversial speech? or should companies like DNS and hosting should be regulated and allow any customer as long as it is lawful content being hosted.
 
Last edited:
6
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
The main issue I see is this. Freedom of speech is acceptable when it is about specific groups, cultures and religions. However, when the exact same speech is made against other specific groups it is referred to as hate speech. The reason for the imbalance of rights and safeguards is directly related to the imbalance of power. The few who have power and control of the many, also control what is written about them and what is allowed to be said about them but will not quash the same said about others. In fact, they encourage it.

If Gab is shut down, so should Twitter, Facebook, Google and others as there is a huge amount of hate speech on there. I am not supporting Gab, I have never used them or heard of them until a few days ago. But what I AM saying is that I oppose the fact that there are rules in place that do not apply to everybody. Either have 1 rule for all or no rules at all! Maybe this was what gab was doing -- having no rules at all, a level playing field. Anyway, I haven't been on the platform so it is hard for me to judge for myself how bad it was on there.

I would love to see power diffused from the monopolistic organisations who control what we can see, read and say (basically learn and think for ourselves) and instead redistributed to everybody. I believe the blockchain could be the key to freedom for all.
 
Last edited:
9
•••
In the meantime, nobody cares about victims.
Gab is not the biggest victim here, if we are even to accept they are a victim.

Another thing:
Maybe it's because the guy is American and not Muslim (White privilege) the people and the media seem to be reluctant to call him for what he is - a domestic terrorist. Instead they prefer more neutral terms like shooter, or shooting suspect, or gunman. It is striking, really.

Usually when a terrorist goes on a killing spree it is expected that law enforcement is going to crack down or at least investigate the sites where he peddled hate and never mind the downtime, free speech takes a backseat.

But if the victims are Jews or Muslims, maybe free speech is more important than compassion ?
 
0
•••
In the meantime, nobody cares about victims.
Gab is not the biggest victim here, if we are even to accept they are a victim.

Another thing:
Maybe it's because the guy is American and not Muslim (White privilege) the people and the media seem to be reluctant to call him for what he is - a domestic terrorist. Instead they prefer more neutral terms like shooter, or shooting suspect, or gunman. It is striking, really.

Usually when a terrorist goes on a killing spree it is expected that law enforcement is going to crack down or at least investigate the sites where he peddled hate and never mind the downtime, free speech takes a backseat.

But if the victims are Jews or Muslims, maybe free speech is more important than compassion ?
1. No such thing as "white privilege." that phrase itself is a racist phrase.

2.
Facebook- tons of active ISIS group pages. YouTube- Tons of active ISIS propaganda pages. Twitter- Tons of ISIS member accounts. When can we expect these sites to shut down ?
 
Last edited:
6
•••
0
•••
Would you say whites have it easier in America?
No. i don't want this to go off topic but Affirmative Action gives college admission preference to non-whites of equal academic performance for no reason other than their paint job

Then you have diversity quotas in the work force, which is the same exact concept. Whites discrimated against in the name of ambiguous term "diversity"

so that's 2 solid examples of discrimination against whites affecting millions of people everyday . Meanwhile kate has zero examples of white privelege
 
Last edited:
5
•••
No. i don't want this to go off topic but Affirmative Action gives college admission preference to non-whites of equal academic performance for no reason other than their paint job

Then you have diversity quotas in the work force, which is the same exact concept. Whites discrimated against in the name of ambiguous term "diversity"

so that's 2 solid examples of discrimination against whites affecting millions of people everyday . Meanwhile kate has zero examples of white privelege

Hop on over to the political thread. This would be an easy topic. Like you said, don't want to take this thread off topic. You do know the man himself in the WH was sued by the Justice Department for housing discrimination, it wasn't against whites. Hop on over.
https://www.namepros.com/threads/the-nps-official-usa-political-thread.764342/page-1101#post-6961210
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Affirmative action has been a law in the USA for 40 years. People given promotions promoted based on their sex / race. Companies given tax credit for hiring based on sex / race.


No. i don't want this to go off topic but Affirmative Action gives college admission preference to non-whites of equal academic performance for no reason other than their paint job

Then you have diversity quotas in the work force, which is the same exact concept. Whites discrimated against in the name of ambiguous term "diversity"

so that's 2 solid examples of discrimination against whites affecting millions of people everyday . Meanwhile kate has zero examples of white privelege
 
2
•••
Hop on over to the political thread.

I invited him also earlier in the thread. Same for anybody else interested. We need some more participants to add to the fun. I don’t tire of arguing with you though. There are lots of good points after reading 4 more pages on this thread.

This entire subject is a real problem on social media. The Silicon Valley monopoly of control and bias is self evident. Twitter is a loser as far as an investment, should be delisted and taken private and ban all conservatives so could be a far left oasis. Lol. Love to see competition from upstarts.

This is a perfect example for promotion of independence of people to buy your domain names, create their own content and help people leave control of Facebook and Twitter.
 
4
•••
2
•••
Walmart, CVS, Google, Twitter, Facebook, All Monopolies, but dare to take them on, they are 20 layers deep before you could even begin to fuck with them. There are billionaires that can’t get through 20 layers, the monopolizing should have been stopped before it began IMO , to late now, money is power.

Facebook fucks up, Twitter fucks up, they get a fine, pay it, and it all goes away.
 
5
•••
Walmart, CVS, Google, Twitter, Facebook, All Monopolies, but dare to take them on, they are 20 layers deep before you could even begin to f*ck with them. There are billionaires that can’t get through 20 layers, the monopolizing should have been stopped before it began IMO , to late now, money is power.

Facebook f*cks up, Twitter f*cks up, they get a fine, pay it, and it all goes away.
Exactly. You finally understand the issue here. We are watching monopolies being used to wield power and defend their moats from any tiny incumbent. They're partnering and colluding to make sure no one tests Them. Alex Jones exposes them and gets un-personed. Gab challenges their ideas of censorship and gets un-personed. Who's next? Someone will be next. That is a fact.

I personally believe Many Domainers (especially those that have a passion in making domains into websites) are just like gab in a way- creative aspiring entrepreneurs with big new innovative ideas. Maybe Im wrong though lol. But I know when I buy some domains I feel like I just bought a goldmine and potentially have the next facebook in the palm of my hands

that potential "next facebook" might never happen because of the monopoles and collusion of big tech. That's not ok
 
2
•••
They're partnering and colluding to make sure no one tests Them. Alex Jones exposes them and gets un-personed.

Not being very factual there. He violated rules many times, I think this was the last straw talking about Mueller:

"That's a demon I will take down, or I'll die trying. So that's it. It's going to happen, we're going to walk out in the square, politically, at high noon, and he's going to find out whether he makes a move man, make the move first, and then it's going to happen," Jones said, miming a pistol with his hand."
 
0
•••
Facebook f*cks up, Twitter f*cks up, they get a fine, pay it, and it all goes away.

But the EU is at least taking them to court and fining them. The US stands by and does nothing. Plenty of buy off of lobbyists both parties in DC.
 
3
•••
Maybe it's because the guy is American and not Muslim (White privilege) the people and the media seem to be reluctant to call him for what he is - a domestic terrorist. Instead they prefer more neutral terms like shooter, or shooting suspect, or gunman. It is striking, really.
This is very interesting me. I see this play out time and time again. I was literally wsiting for the media to call Stephen Paddock a domestic terrorist like his actions have shown to be the case but it didn't happen. Same story with Dylan Roof. Back to Stephen Paddock: reminds me of how around the time of the Orlando shooting tragedy awhile back they never once referred to Stephen Paddock as a domestic terrorist and I honestly didn't hear a lot of news media going nuts about how we must crack down on crime or anything like thst even though the event was one of the most deadly in recent history. They literally started to tell the tale of the persons family life and how he was apparently a good person to close friends which is pretty appalling for such a light hearted commentary to even be spun for someone who carried out such a vile act. Just recently we had the Synagogue shooting (shootings are places of worship are pretty despicable) yet the shooter is an "assumed" or "alleged" shooter. Anyone have any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
This is very interesting me. I see this play out time and time again. I was literally wsiting for the media to call Stephen Paddock a domestic terrorist like his actions have shown to be the case but it didn't happen. Same story with Dylan Roof. Back to Stephen Paddock: reminds me of how around the time of the Orlando shooting tragedy awhile back they never once referred to Stephen Paddock as a domestic terrorist and I honestly didn't hear a lot of news media going nuts about how we must crack down on crime or anything like thst even though the event was one of the most deadly in recent history. They literally started to tell the tale of the persons family life and how he was apparently a good person to close friends which is pretty appalling for such a light hearted commentary to even be spun for someone who carried out such a vile act. Just recently we had the Synagogue shooting (shootings are places of worship are pretty despicable) yet the shooter is an "assumed" or "alleged" shooter. Anyone have any thoughts?

Here is an interesting case that has barely been in the news -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ed-mosque-bomb-plot-ask-more-lenient-sentence

Attorneys representing a Kansas man convicted of a 2016 plot to massacre Somali Muslim refugees by bombing a mosque and apartment complex in Garden City, Kan., have asked a federal judge to consider a more lenient sentence, arguing that President Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric should be taken into account as the “backdrop” for the case.

Patrick Eugene Stein faces life in prison for conspiring with two other men to carry out the attack, which was supposed to take place on the day after the 2016 presidential election. On Monday, his attorneys filed a memo in U.S. District Court in the District of Kansas, requesting that Stein receive a sentence of no more than 15 years. They note that Stein was an “early and avid supporter” of Trump and argue that the climate in the months leading up to the 2016 election should be taken in account when evaluating the comments prosecutors used to build their case.

I am pretty sure if instead of white guys bombing a mosque it was Muslims bombing a church that would be reported all over the place.

This type of thing should be labeled what it is. Terrorism is terrorism regardless of skin color.

Brad
 
6
•••
Here is an interesting case that has barely been in the news -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ed-mosque-bomb-plot-ask-more-lenient-sentence

Attorneys representing a Kansas man convicted of a 2016 plot to massacre Somali Muslim refugees by bombing a mosque and apartment complex in Garden City, Kan., have asked a federal judge to consider a more lenient sentence, arguing that President Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric should be taken into account as the “backdrop” for the case.

Patrick Eugene Stein faces life in prison for conspiring with two other men to carry out the attack, which was supposed to take place on the day after the 2016 presidential election. On Monday, his attorneys filed a memo in U.S. District Court in the District of Kansas, requesting that Stein receive a sentence of no more than 15 years. They note that Stein was an “early and avid supporter” of Trump and argue that the climate in the months leading up to the 2016 election should be taken in account when evaluating the comments prosecutors used to build their case.

I am pretty sure if instead of white guys bombing a mosque it was Muslims bombing a church that would be reported all over the place.

This type of thing should be labeled what it is. Terrorism is terrorism regardless of skin color.

Brad
I read about that just earlier today actually. I agree. Would be interesting if Donald Trump had a response to the news about those men and their case. Now that would make for good television.
 
1
•••
I'm happy to see that Godaddy has its moral compass in place. Regardless of your political affiliation, it's best to look at what exactly took place on Gab before making any judgment about the action of Godaddy to kick them of their registrar.

A lot has already been said in this thread (even before full information was published about the case) but if you review the facts, It's hard to understand why Uniregistry is making this controversial move to host the domain after Godaddy.

There's no fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech which resulted in the death of a number of people. Since when is the right to being able to spread hate and to entice others to act on that hate more valuable than a human life? People have died, and all that the CEO of Gab is concerned about is to keep his platform up and running. He's showing zero remorse.

Check out this report, which is published yesterday: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...engaged-several-influential-alt-right-figures

If you read the above report from a beginners mind, so without any political filter, you'll observe that Gab was used to spread extremist ideologies, among extremists and it wouldn't end there. Gab users would also post content to actively promote and encourage violence.

Here's a quote from the report I shared above:

"In one chilling post, Wyand argues that “we’re being invaded” and “our people are being completely destroyed.” He urges action “by any means necessary” to stop it. Bowers’ final post echoes those sentiments exactly."

As long as this type of content is condoned by Gab, they have no place on the internet in my opinion. Again, there's no fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech which results in evil deeds like that of Bowers.

If the Gab CEO had apologized and made a strong statement against hate speech and committed to clean up Gab, I'm pretty sure Godaddy wouldn't have kicked them of their registrar either.

But the steadfast willingness to keep doing what they do resulted in a lot of high-tech companies to stop working with them. Twitter and Facebook are significantly bigger than Gab and so more immune against this type of situation. However, that doesn't mean that hate speech is tolerated there. Both platforms actively monitor and delete illegal content, when they spot it. Gab refused to that, and so is rightfully now penalized.

Keep in mind that due to the Internet extremist ideas and false information spread faster than ever before. Not everyone is mentally sane either and can act on that type of content. Malignous content, therefore, should never be condoned or accepted by anyone under the false premise of free speech.

Just my 2 cents. The above applies from my point of view on any type of hate speech and acts of enticing violence between people. Both liberals, conservatives, man and woman of faith etc should care about wishing a harmonious life for all. Not just the group you affiliate yourself most with.

Reza
 
0
•••
Here is an interesting case that has barely been in the news -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ed-mosque-bomb-plot-ask-more-lenient-sentence

Attorneys representing a Kansas man convicted of a 2016 plot to massacre Somali Muslim refugees by bombing a mosque and apartment complex in Garden City, Kan., have asked a federal judge to consider a more lenient sentence, arguing that President Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric should be taken into account as the “backdrop” for the case.

Patrick Eugene Stein faces life in prison for conspiring with two other men to carry out the attack, which was supposed to take place on the day after the 2016 presidential election. On Monday, his attorneys filed a memo in U.S. District Court in the District of Kansas, requesting that Stein receive a sentence of no more than 15 years. They note that Stein was an “early and avid supporter” of Trump and argue that the climate in the months leading up to the 2016 election should be taken in account when evaluating the comments prosecutors used to build their case.

I am pretty sure if instead of white guys bombing a mosque it was Muslims bombing a church that would be reported all over the place.

This type of thing should be labeled what it is. Terrorism is terrorism regardless of skin color.

Brad

Absolutely. There are many cases. Also there are other examples where political figures massacre Muslims and face a wrist slap whereas if it was the opposite way around it would be "invade, bomb, conquer, kill and steal" as a punishment.

There should be one rule for all. Killing and harming is wrong no matter the colour of your skin, religion, race, sexuality etc. Unfortunately there have been labels created to define a bad person depending on their race and religion and this is wrong on many levels.

An example is Myanmar and the massacre of the rohingya. Apart from a nobel peace price what has been done to stop this? Nothing. What has she been labelled as? Nothing as far as I can see... in fact I haven't seen it mentioned for a while.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread. I like that people are having an open conversation but still remaining civilised. :)
 
Last edited:
1
•••
I'm happy to see that Godaddy has its moral compass in place. Regardless of your political affiliation, it's best to look at what exactly took place on Gab before making any judgment about the action of Godaddy to kick them of their registrar.

A lot has already been said in this thread (even before full information was published about the case) but if you review the facts, It's hard to understand why Uniregistry is making this controversial move to host the domain after Godaddy.

There's no fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech which resulted in the death of a number of people. Since when is the right to being able to spread hate and to entice others to act on that hate more valuable than a human life? People have died, and all that the CEO of Gab is concerned about is to keep his platform up and running. He's showing zero remorse.

Check out this report, which is published yesterday: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...engaged-several-influential-alt-right-figures

If you read the above report from a beginners mind, so without any political filter, you'll observe that Gab was used to spread extremist ideologies, among extremists and it wouldn't end there. Gab users would also post content to actively promote and encourage violence.

Here's a quote from the report I shared above:

"In one chilling post, Wyand argues that “we’re being invaded” and “our people are being completely destroyed.” He urges action “by any means necessary” to stop it. Bowers’ final post echoes those sentiments exactly."

As long as this type of content is condoned by Gab, they have no place on the internet in my opinion. Again, there's no fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech which results in evil deeds like that of Bowers.

If the Gab CEO had apologized and made a strong statement against hate speech and committed to clean up Gab, I'm pretty sure Godaddy wouldn't have kicked them of their registrar either.

But the steadfast willingness to keep doing what they do resulted in a lot of high-tech companies to stop working with them. Twitter and Facebook are significantly bigger than Gab and so more immune against this type of situation. However, that doesn't mean that hate speech is tolerated there. Both platforms actively monitor and delete illegal content, when they spot it. Gab refused to that, and so is rightfully now penalized.

Keep in mind that due to the Internet extremist ideas and false information spread faster than ever before. Not everyone is mentally sane either and can act on that type of content. Malignous content, therefore, should never be condoned or accepted by anyone under the false premise of free speech.

Just my 2 cents. The above applies from my point of view on any type of hate speech and acts of enticing violence between people. Both liberals, conservatives, man and woman of faith etc should care about wishing a harmonious life for all. Not just the group you affiliate yourself most with.

Reza
I'm disappointed by your outlook, Reza. And all others here, who share your misplaced sentiment. While I agree with you on principle, I vehemently object to the misplaced idea that registrars should take it upon themselves to do the policing, whether GoDaddy in the case in point or NameSilo and "tax evasion" or Epik and nudity or pornography. If only because none of them are trained and competent to make these calls, their hordes of lawyers notwithstanding. ICANN accredited domain registrars are notaries public, duly licenced to maintain domains. Period.

There are many others who are paid to enforce the law. Anybody who is: 1) unhappy with the whole situation and 2) have leanings in that direction, should apply to the Police Academy or go to law school and train to become a prosecutor, but not, repeat not, run a domain registrar!

I'm not a fan of Uniregistry, but I applaud their stance in this matter, their motivation notwithstanding.
 
3
•••
I'm not a fan of Uniregistry, but I applaud their stance in this matter, their motivation notwithstanding.

The transfer may have been an automated process, let's see if it stays there when they find out who their new tenant is.

Has anyone looked at Uni's ToS?

The issue with Godaddy was not a one-off decision, they do have a ToS covering this and have booted out domains before.
 
0
•••
The transfer may have been an automated process, let's see if it stays there when they find out who their new tenant is.
Possibly, but unlikely. Given the domain's status and notoriety, as well as the impossibility of ongoing transfer within 60 days, I expect they had cleared this with Uniregistry's top brass beforehand.
The issue with Godaddy was not a one-off decision, they do have a ToS covering this and have booted out domains before.
It's GoDaddy's and others TOS I take issue with. As duly licenced domain notaries public, they should adhere to the law, not create their own regulations as they see fit, dependent on their personal political, religious or ethical viewpoints. Failing that, they should have their accreditation revoked (following due process and given the opportunity to correct said TOS).
 
2
•••
I'm disappointed by your outlook, Reza. And all others here, who share your misplaced sentiment. While I agree with you on principle, I vehemently object to the misplaced idea that registrars should take it upon themselves to do the policing, whether GoDaddy in the case in point or NameSilo and "tax evasion" or Epik and nudity or pornography. If only because none of them are trained and competent to make these calls, their hordes of lawyers notwithstanding. ICANN accredited domain registrars are notaries public, duly licenced to maintain domains. Period.

There are many others who are paid to enforce the law. Anybody who is: 1) unhappy with the whole situation and 2) have leanings in that direction, should apply to the Police Academy or go to law school and train to become a prosecutor, but not, repeat not, run a domain registrar!

I'm not a fan of Uniregistry, but I applaud their stance in this matter, their motivation notwithstanding.

I respect your opinion. You can definitely disagree with me.

I do believe in accountability and corporate responsibility though. All that Godaddy and other hi-tech companies have done is to draw a line and take responsibility to protect the rest of us.

There are thousands of registrars out there, I'm sure they would have eventually found one that would host them. But if Gab wouldn't get the pushback they got now, they might never step up and clean up all dangerous content on the platform. There's proof now that some of the content on Gab has inspired Bowers to commit a horrible act. That's why a lot of hi-tech companies are drawing a line and saying there are boundaries to what's acceptable.
 
0
•••
...I do believe in accountability and corporate responsibility though. All that Godaddy and other hi-tech companies have done is to draw a line and take responsibility to protect the rest of us...
Sure, Reza. We agree to disagree :xf.smile:

The future will tell who was right. Be it "socially responsible", scared people, taking things into their own hands... hey, maybe curtailing the movement of all those migrants (read: potential terrorists) in Europe, or by extension all darker skinned people? A few more terrorist incidents and ghettos may well be superceded by concentration camps, albeit somewhat more civilized than those from WWII history books (read: no gassing or starving them). How's that for socially responsible action sound to you there, in Netherlands, is it, Reza? :sneaky:

Back to the case in point, this Gab.com, which I'd never heard of before this thread here, nor which I couldn't care less about... except that, once you condone - or in your case applaud! - such socially responsible, well, lynching, by private individuals, you're opening a can of worms you might find very hard to stomach, say, five to ten years down the road. Or maybe I have a lively imagination and nothing of this sort could ever come to pass? :sneaky:

The way things are going, people are more scared by the day. Reading your comments here, Reza, (and many others), admittedly very sensible sounding ones on the face of it, any hope that some common sense would prevail and such "responsible" policing will be in turn policed (read: penalized, discouraged) by competent authorities, fade away :xf.frown::xf.frown:
 
Last edited:
0
•••
It's hard to understand why Uniregistry is making this controversial move to host the domain after Godaddy.
They were probably not consulted beforehand. But when they find out, I'm pretty sure they will scrutinize the account and kick them out at the first faux pas.
Uni is offshore, that must have been a criterion. To some extent, they are moving away from US jurisdiction.

Unsurprisingly they are still using Cloudflare but Protonmail handles their mail.
 
1
•••
Has anyone looked at Uni's ToS?
https://uniregistry.com/legal/registration-agreement

2.15 Revocation

We, in our sole discretion, reserve the right to deny, cancel, suspend, transfer or modify any domain name registration to correct a mistake, protect the integrity and stability of our operations and of any applicable registry, to comply with any applicable laws, government rules, or requirements, requests of law enforcement, in compliance with any dispute resolution process, to address fraudulent payments or identity theft, to avoid any liability, civil or criminal or in response to abusive, threatening or harassing communications directed to us or any of our employees or agents in the scope of their employment. You agree that we shall not be liable to you for loss or damages that may result from our refusal to register or cancel, suspend, transfer or modify your domain name registration under this section.

2.19 Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Cayman Islands without reference to rules governing choice of laws. Any action relating to this Agreement must be brought in the courts of the Cayman Islands, and you irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of such courts.
 
0
•••
Back