7 ms·

NoFILTER – free speech blogging app and content on IPFS

57 points by cmatthieu 5y ago

cmatthieu 5y ago
Welcome to NoFILTER, the unstoppable, uncensorable, undeplatformable freedom of speech app. By design, this app allows you to spread your word without limits. This app and your articles reside on the Interplanetary File System (IPFS), a decentralized mesh network consisting of thousands of user nodes. There is no web server, no database, and no cloud; therefore, making this app and your content unstoppable and undeplatformable. When your article gets published to IPFS, the hash of the contents of the article becomes the name of the file. If one character gets added or removed the hash name changes; therefore, making it impossible to censor. If a government were to try to block the nofilter.org domain, you can still access the site and the content via hundreds of IPFS gateways around the world as well as through #IPFS directly by downloading the ipfs companion browser extension or by using the Brave browser which natively supports the IPFS protocol. Here's the same article but hosted on NoFILTER (IPFS) - https://nofilter.org/#/0xae48565bfb998f7cc7855e910345f5b801a7fcf1/QmVqHZHiZCDrTN5qwjWx6Lbp42Ty6UN1KeLpBmxmg5rXma https://nofilter.org/#/0xae48565bfb998f7cc7855e910345f5b801a...
- lottin 5y ago
  Out of curiosity, if this app really allows unstoppable and uncensorable posting, how does it deal with DoS attacks?
  - jandrese 5y ago
    That's the beauty of it, it doesn't. You can spam nonsense all day long. This is only a problem if you want people to actually read what you are posting.
    - 0des 5y ago
      I would challenge the downvoters of this comment to contribute an informed rebuttal. IPFS is just content-addressing+p2p. In the conventional sense it is similar in comparison to the greater internet. Joe Blow can be on his blog talking about blenders and mixing spoons all day and none of us have to know he exists until we follow the address to his content, thereby downloading it. Where IPFS takes this a step further is enrolling the viewer/reader/participant in the swarm of peers replicating this content.
      - lottin 5y ago
        The point is that hosting content uses resources, and resources are limited. Therefore, if nothing prevents it, an attacker could theoretically use up all the resources available, which would bring this supposedly unstoppable publishing platform to a stop. Yet, if they prevented it, it would be a kind of censorship, so the platform could not claim to be uncensorable.
  - dboreham 5y ago
    There's also the question of reachability on IPFS. Something _existing_ on IPFS is not the same as : everyone can access it .
  - ergot_vacation 5y ago
    Despite all the talk IPFS is just voluntary content mirroring. If people feel you're spamming, they'll stop mirroring your shit. Which of course illustrates the worthlessness of the platform for "Anti-censorship" and "Free Speech."
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  "Free speech" of the type often invoked these days is essentially, "the right to be hateful, attack other groups and lobby for their subjugation". Then, of course, there's the "right to poison society by spreading radicalizing disinformation". Adherents to this style of free speech decry their de-platforming by "big tech" which doesn't want to endorse their toxicity (partly because dysfunctional societies are bad for business and partly because their targeted customers may speak with their wallets). The acolytes' standard reaction in response to this violation of their right to be awful is "who gets to choose which speech is acceptable?" as if we don't otherwise have a functioning society, social contract, and laws. Other people get to choose. That's who. Their right to free speech includes a non-obligation to regurgitate your speech. Don't want to be "censored"? Then, don't pretend you have no idea what anti-social behavior is and don't be awful to other people. Otherwise expect that you're free to talk, but no one's obligated to listen. For those who don't agree with this, then tell you what: pick something absolutely and near universally abhorrent, say sexual abuse of children, and make the right to lobby for its legitimacy your rallying cry. Use it as the example of speech you intend to allow because "who should be the arbiter?" Until you're willing to stake your beliefs (or project, etc.) on that, no one should buy what you're selling. Because then it becomes immediately obvious that what you're really lobbying for is a narrow, but vocal group of people whose ideas you likely agree with, but whose speech you view as recently restricted.
- zkldi 5y ago
  What happens if someone uploads child pornography? Does it just stay there and everyone has to deal with looking at it?
  - criddell 5y ago
    Their ToS say they will take it down if they feel like taking it down.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - zkldi 5y ago
      So it's not free speech?
      - criddell 5y ago
        It’s more free than some places online but definitely less free than standing on a box in the park and making a speech.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >What happens if someone uploads child pornography? That's illegal.
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  I stopped believing in "decentralized free speech" platforms the moment they all decided to censor and attack anyone they politically disagreed with (ie Gab's treatment at the hands of Mastodon). None of the people running these projects actually understand what freedom of speech really is (the ability of THE PEOPLE YOU HATE to speak, a principle, not just a law). When these people drone on and one about "Free Speech" and "Anti-censorship," they really just mean "for people who agree with me," which is no free speech at all. Beyond that, IPFS is a joke. It's hovered in toy status for years, devoid of the core features it needs to justify its existence (a way to motivate people to host besides the goodness of their hearts, a DNS replacement that's not laughable, a simple and stable interface etc). But even if IPFS was everything it claims to be, using it for something like this is laughable: 1. There is no security in IPFS. It's a content mirroring technology. If you're hosting something illegal, the authorities can find you just fine. 2. IPFS is entirely voluntary. Mirrors can opt out of mirroring things they don't want to host. What are people going to opt out of most? Controversial content. Oh yeah, you can host "controversial" content of the type a teenager things is controversial. But anything actually hot is going to get shit-canned before you can blink. Overall, IPFS, and anything built on it, is either absurd over-engineering or absurd under-engineering. If you wanna mirror bland, non-hot stuff, just mirror it in the usual ways. You don't need all this cyber-punk larping cloak-and-dagger shit. Nobody cares. And if they DO care? IPFS ain't gonna save you.
chomp 5y ago
I smiled at their George Washington quote; people who know George Washington's stance on free speech (e.g. his support for the Sedition Act) understand that he drew the line of free speech much more harsh than what we do today.
- criddell 5y ago
  I'm not sure I would use the image of a slave owner when trying to make a point about freedom...
  - ergot_vacation 5y ago
    Your ideology is flawed. Human beings are not divided into two camps, "Good" and "Bad." You do not slice the pie in two and and discard everyone in the "Bad" camp. If you do, and do so honestly, you will find in short order that you have discarded everyone who ever lived, or ever will. Humans are complicated creatures with many flaws and nobilities. Because of Washington's actions in both the revolution and his presidency, a vast number of people enjoyed far more freedom than they would have otherwise. Also because of Washington's actions, some people had to endure a life a brutal slavery. Neither of these aspects is untrue, or erases the other from history by its existence. History, and humans, are often messy and uncomfortable. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. It is possible for Washington to be both a hero of freedom and a disappointing oppressor at the same time. This is the paradox of the human condition. You're not enlightened. You haven't discovered some grand, hidden truth that all the world must know by pointing out that respected historical figures were flawed. We know. We've always known. We respect them anyway, because they did good as well as bad, and the good was a big deal.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - criddell 5y ago
      You did a much better job than I did explaining why Washington is a risky person to associate with when trying to convey the idea of freedom. His legacy in that regard is too messy. And you're absolutely right - I am not enlightened.
petre 5y ago
Well, it's promoted with anti vax puctures. Great.
- 0des 5y ago
  I'm curious what type of content you believe requires/prefers claimed uncensorable mediums of being published. Do you envision it being movie reviews and cake recipes, or can you imagine that ideologies prone to being censored may make up the lion's share of that content?
  - petre 5y ago
    Xinjiang human rights abuses? US drone attacks on civilians, journalists and other innocent bystanders? Deplatformed LGBTQ+ content? However, these mediums are more frequently used to promote conspiracy theories, like the ones anti vaxxers spread and only lead to more covid victims, brainwashing leading to Q-anon types that have recently stormed the US Capitol, IS recruitment PR, CP etc. Oh and the video starts with the deplatforming of President Trump, a former head of state with a trolling habit, as if this was a net loss for the rest of us? Promoting your app with this type of content, plus the name and the subtitle in almost all caps is quite telling.
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  People who agree with the mainstream, official line, government etc. don't need anti-censorship platforms. Your response to opening such a platform and seeing positions you hate should be "Excellent! It's working as it should!"
  - rini17 5y ago
    I'd say "works as it should" if there was evidence of actual human rights violations. They keep happening everywhere. Not conspirations without any trace of substance and airing grievances of privileged classes. It's NOT that I disagree. Every now and then I do consider something nonmainstream credible enough to research deeper. Guess how such research ends up. Poorly.
new_guy 5y ago
So, what's your plan with dealing with child porn, weapons manuals, doxxing info, password dumps, revenge porn etc etc?
- cmatthieu 5y ago
  Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect. - Eleanor Roosevelt That's a great question. Free speech doesn't mean lawlessness. There are many exceptions listed in the US constitution and those can be pursued by authorities to the degree they navigate IPFS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... For starters, we deliberately made a conscience decision not to make it easy to include photos or videos in content. We also made a decision not to create a general feed where all content is accessible.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > For starters, we deliberately made a conscience decision not to make it easy to include photos or videos in content. So instead of censoring some photos and videos through moderation, you decided to censor all photos and videos. It sounds like you want to comply with US law, but US law requires censorship of some speech: libelous claims, copyrighted works, incitement to violence, etc. Why comply with some US law and not all of it?
    - criddell 5y ago
      Maybe they are complying with the laws they agree with? I don't see any reason why it has to be all or none.
  - sleepybrett 5y ago
    "make it easy" seems to be doing a lot of work there. What do you mean by this? Do you mean that because it's just a stream of bytes people could post all the child porn they like as base64 encoded strings? Have you just created alt. newsgroups again? Congrats on your brand new hive soon to be overpopulated with scum and villainy.
feoren 5y ago
Every single time someone tries something like this, it becomes a bastion for hate speech and everyone else is driven away. It turns out most people actually like a moderated forum. If you joined a book club and every meeting had people just screaming the N-word at the top of their lungs the entire time, I suspect you wouldn't stay at that book club long. Yet time and time again we see people learning this same lesson. It makes me wonder whether everyone who is extremely anti-censorship really does just want to scream the N-word in everyone's face all day, deep down. Good luck with your hate speech site.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Back in April I fired up LBRY when I heard about it. Sounded kinda neat on a technical front. 95% of the page was conspiracy-tards and racists. Noped right off, and haven't been on since. Just launched it again and the front page shows a video from some asshole talking about how she's discovered that Measles is a sham and SHE has uncovered the fact that NOBODY has proved the existence of virus particles! Also, turns out that PCR is fake, who knew? eyeroll LBRY is now dominated by "pseudopandemic" vloggers, antivaxxers, 9/11 conspiratards, "population control" conspiratards, "Australia is FALLING!!!"...the list goes on. There are people who legitimately could use censorship-free platforms, but they're drowned out by all the assholes and morons who think they're being "censored" by (insert boogeyman here) trying to hide THE TRUTH...when really it's that nobody can stand their bigotry/stupidity.
  - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
    It's really that the people who can't stand them get them kicked off Youtube. That's the definition of legitimate use.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  At some point you really do have to stop giving people the benefit of the doubt and accept that, yes, people keep making these services because they want to be racist. The purpose of a system is what it does.
izzydata 5y ago
I found it amusing that this "nofilter.org" is blocked on my companies network. Not very unstoppable and uncensorable apparently.
- ajvs 5y ago
  Try nofilter.eth, they mention that domain is the only weakness and this decentralised domain can circumvent blocking.
  - 0des 5y ago
    That's not a valid TLD for most people.
necessity_life 5y ago
Great work! The one thing that sticks out to me as a 'flaw' in this app is how it is marketed. It might be better to market it under a 'normal' name as a great blogging app, which, by the way, is uncensorable, etc. That might make it seem like a good alternative for the general public rather than just a safe haven for marginalized voices.
dclaw 5y ago
The first amendment protects you from being arrested by the government for what you say. It does not protect you from everyone else saying you're a fucking idiot and shunning you when you say something stupid....
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  This site doesn't even mention the first amendment.
mro_name 5y ago
The google 3rd party servers makes it look like bait.

57 points by cmatthieu 5y ago

Welcome to NoFILTER, the unstoppable, uncensorable, undeplatformable freedom of speech app. By design, this app allows you to spread your word without limits. This app and your articles reside on the Interplanetary File System (IPFS), a decentralized mesh network consisting of thousands of user nodes. There is no web server, no database, and no cloud; therefore, making this app and your content unstoppable and undeplatformable. When your article gets published to IPFS, the hash of the contents of the article becomes the name of the file. If one character gets added or removed the hash name changes; therefore, making it impossible to censor. If a government were to try to block the nofilter.org domain, you can still access the site and the content via hundreds of IPFS gateways around the world as well as through #IPFS directly by downloading the ipfs companion browser extension or by using the Brave browser which natively supports the IPFS protocol. Here's the same article but hosted on NoFILTER (IPFS) - https://nofilter.org/#/0xae48565bfb998f7cc7855e910345f5b801a7fcf1/QmVqHZHiZCDrTN5qwjWx6Lbp42Ty6UN1KeLpBmxmg5rXma https://nofilter.org/#/0xae48565bfb998f7cc7855e910345f5b801a...

lottin 5y ago
Out of curiosity, if this app really allows unstoppable and uncensorable posting, how does it deal with DoS attacks?
- jandrese 5y ago
  That's the beauty of it, it doesn't. You can spam nonsense all day long. This is only a problem if you want people to actually read what you are posting.
  - 0des 5y ago
    I would challenge the downvoters of this comment to contribute an informed rebuttal. IPFS is just content-addressing+p2p. In the conventional sense it is similar in comparison to the greater internet. Joe Blow can be on his blog talking about blenders and mixing spoons all day and none of us have to know he exists until we follow the address to his content, thereby downloading it. Where IPFS takes this a step further is enrolling the viewer/reader/participant in the swarm of peers replicating this content.
    - lottin 5y ago
      The point is that hosting content uses resources, and resources are limited. Therefore, if nothing prevents it, an attacker could theoretically use up all the resources available, which would bring this supposedly unstoppable publishing platform to a stop. Yet, if they prevented it, it would be a kind of censorship, so the platform could not claim to be uncensorable.
- dboreham 5y ago
  There's also the question of reachability on IPFS. Something _existing_ on IPFS is not the same as : everyone can access it .
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  Despite all the talk IPFS is just voluntary content mirroring. If people feel you're spamming, they'll stop mirroring your shit. Which of course illustrates the worthlessness of the platform for "Anti-censorship" and "Free Speech."
unclebucknasty 5y ago
"Free speech" of the type often invoked these days is essentially, "the right to be hateful, attack other groups and lobby for their subjugation". Then, of course, there's the "right to poison society by spreading radicalizing disinformation". Adherents to this style of free speech decry their de-platforming by "big tech" which doesn't want to endorse their toxicity (partly because dysfunctional societies are bad for business and partly because their targeted customers may speak with their wallets). The acolytes' standard reaction in response to this violation of their right to be awful is "who gets to choose which speech is acceptable?" as if we don't otherwise have a functioning society, social contract, and laws. Other people get to choose. That's who. Their right to free speech includes a non-obligation to regurgitate your speech. Don't want to be "censored"? Then, don't pretend you have no idea what anti-social behavior is and don't be awful to other people. Otherwise expect that you're free to talk, but no one's obligated to listen. For those who don't agree with this, then tell you what: pick something absolutely and near universally abhorrent, say sexual abuse of children, and make the right to lobby for its legitimacy your rallying cry. Use it as the example of speech you intend to allow because "who should be the arbiter?" Until you're willing to stake your beliefs (or project, etc.) on that, no one should buy what you're selling. Because then it becomes immediately obvious that what you're really lobbying for is a narrow, but vocal group of people whose ideas you likely agree with, but whose speech you view as recently restricted.
zkldi 5y ago
What happens if someone uploads child pornography? Does it just stay there and everyone has to deal with looking at it?
- criddell 5y ago
  Their ToS say they will take it down if they feel like taking it down.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zkldi 5y ago
    So it's not free speech?
    - criddell 5y ago
      It’s more free than some places online but definitely less free than standing on a box in the park and making a speech.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >What happens if someone uploads child pornography? That's illegal.
ergot_vacation 5y ago
I stopped believing in "decentralized free speech" platforms the moment they all decided to censor and attack anyone they politically disagreed with (ie Gab's treatment at the hands of Mastodon). None of the people running these projects actually understand what freedom of speech really is (the ability of THE PEOPLE YOU HATE to speak, a principle, not just a law). When these people drone on and one about "Free Speech" and "Anti-censorship," they really just mean "for people who agree with me," which is no free speech at all. Beyond that, IPFS is a joke. It's hovered in toy status for years, devoid of the core features it needs to justify its existence (a way to motivate people to host besides the goodness of their hearts, a DNS replacement that's not laughable, a simple and stable interface etc). But even if IPFS was everything it claims to be, using it for something like this is laughable: 1. There is no security in IPFS. It's a content mirroring technology. If you're hosting something illegal, the authorities can find you just fine. 2. IPFS is entirely voluntary. Mirrors can opt out of mirroring things they don't want to host. What are people going to opt out of most? Controversial content. Oh yeah, you can host "controversial" content of the type a teenager things is controversial. But anything actually hot is going to get shit-canned before you can blink. Overall, IPFS, and anything built on it, is either absurd over-engineering or absurd under-engineering. If you wanna mirror bland, non-hot stuff, just mirror it in the usual ways. You don't need all this cyber-punk larping cloak-and-dagger shit. Nobody cares. And if they DO care? IPFS ain't gonna save you.

chomp 5y ago

I smiled at their George Washington quote; people who know George Washington's stance on free speech (e.g. his support for the Sedition Act) understand that he drew the line of free speech much more harsh than what we do today.

criddell 5y ago
I'm not sure I would use the image of a slave owner when trying to make a point about freedom...
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  Your ideology is flawed. Human beings are not divided into two camps, "Good" and "Bad." You do not slice the pie in two and and discard everyone in the "Bad" camp. If you do, and do so honestly, you will find in short order that you have discarded everyone who ever lived, or ever will. Humans are complicated creatures with many flaws and nobilities. Because of Washington's actions in both the revolution and his presidency, a vast number of people enjoyed far more freedom than they would have otherwise. Also because of Washington's actions, some people had to endure a life a brutal slavery. Neither of these aspects is untrue, or erases the other from history by its existence. History, and humans, are often messy and uncomfortable. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. It is possible for Washington to be both a hero of freedom and a disappointing oppressor at the same time. This is the paradox of the human condition. You're not enlightened. You haven't discovered some grand, hidden truth that all the world must know by pointing out that respected historical figures were flawed. We know. We've always known. We respect them anyway, because they did good as well as bad, and the good was a big deal.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - criddell 5y ago
    You did a much better job than I did explaining why Washington is a risky person to associate with when trying to convey the idea of freedom. His legacy in that regard is too messy. And you're absolutely right - I am not enlightened.

petre 5y ago

Well, it's promoted with anti vax puctures. Great.

0des 5y ago
I'm curious what type of content you believe requires/prefers claimed uncensorable mediums of being published. Do you envision it being movie reviews and cake recipes, or can you imagine that ideologies prone to being censored may make up the lion's share of that content?
- petre 5y ago
  Xinjiang human rights abuses? US drone attacks on civilians, journalists and other innocent bystanders? Deplatformed LGBTQ+ content? However, these mediums are more frequently used to promote conspiracy theories, like the ones anti vaxxers spread and only lead to more covid victims, brainwashing leading to Q-anon types that have recently stormed the US Capitol, IS recruitment PR, CP etc. Oh and the video starts with the deplatforming of President Trump, a former head of state with a trolling habit, as if this was a net loss for the rest of us? Promoting your app with this type of content, plus the name and the subtitle in almost all caps is quite telling.
ergot_vacation 5y ago
People who agree with the mainstream, official line, government etc. don't need anti-censorship platforms. Your response to opening such a platform and seeing positions you hate should be "Excellent! It's working as it should!"
- rini17 5y ago
  I'd say "works as it should" if there was evidence of actual human rights violations. They keep happening everywhere. Not conspirations without any trace of substance and airing grievances of privileged classes. It's NOT that I disagree. Every now and then I do consider something nonmainstream credible enough to research deeper. Guess how such research ends up. Poorly.

new_guy 5y ago

So, what's your plan with dealing with child porn, weapons manuals, doxxing info, password dumps, revenge porn etc etc?

cmatthieu 5y ago
Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect. - Eleanor Roosevelt That's a great question. Free speech doesn't mean lawlessness. There are many exceptions listed in the US constitution and those can be pursued by authorities to the degree they navigate IPFS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... For starters, we deliberately made a conscience decision not to make it easy to include photos or videos in content. We also made a decision not to create a general feed where all content is accessible.
- smt88 5y ago
  > For starters, we deliberately made a conscience decision not to make it easy to include photos or videos in content. So instead of censoring some photos and videos through moderation, you decided to censor all photos and videos. It sounds like you want to comply with US law, but US law requires censorship of some speech: libelous claims, copyrighted works, incitement to violence, etc. Why comply with some US law and not all of it?
  - criddell 5y ago
    Maybe they are complying with the laws they agree with? I don't see any reason why it has to be all or none.
- sleepybrett 5y ago
  "make it easy" seems to be doing a lot of work there. What do you mean by this? Do you mean that because it's just a stream of bytes people could post all the child porn they like as base64 encoded strings? Have you just created alt. newsgroups again? Congrats on your brand new hive soon to be overpopulated with scum and villainy.

feoren 5y ago

Every single time someone tries something like this, it becomes a bastion for hate speech and everyone else is driven away. It turns out most people actually like a moderated forum. If you joined a book club and every meeting had people just screaming the N-word at the top of their lungs the entire time, I suspect you wouldn't stay at that book club long. Yet time and time again we see people learning this same lesson. It makes me wonder whether everyone who is extremely anti-censorship really does just want to scream the N-word in everyone's face all day, deep down. Good luck with your hate speech site.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
Back in April I fired up LBRY when I heard about it. Sounded kinda neat on a technical front. 95% of the page was conspiracy-tards and racists. Noped right off, and haven't been on since. Just launched it again and the front page shows a video from some asshole talking about how she's discovered that Measles is a sham and SHE has uncovered the fact that NOBODY has proved the existence of virus particles! Also, turns out that PCR is fake, who knew? eyeroll LBRY is now dominated by "pseudopandemic" vloggers, antivaxxers, 9/11 conspiratards, "population control" conspiratards, "Australia is FALLING!!!"...the list goes on. There are people who legitimately could use censorship-free platforms, but they're drowned out by all the assholes and morons who think they're being "censored" by (insert boogeyman here) trying to hide THE TRUTH...when really it's that nobody can stand their bigotry/stupidity.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  It's really that the people who can't stand them get them kicked off Youtube. That's the definition of legitimate use.
user-the-name 5y ago
At some point you really do have to stop giving people the benefit of the doubt and accept that, yes, people keep making these services because they want to be racist. The purpose of a system is what it does.

izzydata 5y ago

I found it amusing that this "nofilter.org" is blocked on my companies network. Not very unstoppable and uncensorable apparently.

ajvs 5y ago
Try nofilter.eth, they mention that domain is the only weakness and this decentralised domain can circumvent blocking.
- 0des 5y ago
  That's not a valid TLD for most people.

necessity_life 5y ago

Great work! The one thing that sticks out to me as a 'flaw' in this app is how it is marketed. It might be better to market it under a 'normal' name as a great blogging app, which, by the way, is uncensorable, etc. That might make it seem like a good alternative for the general public rather than just a safe haven for marginalized voices.

dclaw 5y ago

The first amendment protects you from being arrested by the government for what you say. It does not protect you from everyone else saying you're a fucking idiot and shunning you when you say something stupid....

amadeuspagel 5y ago
This site doesn't even mention the first amendment.

mro_name 5y ago

The google 3rd party servers makes it look like bait.