Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why censorship is practiced on social media.


Hawken

Recommended Posts

On 3/14/2024 at 3:49 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

It is when your argument depends on the idea that speech is being silenced, which it's clearly not.  When there was no internet people had free speech rights, you agree?  We didn't force book publishers, newspapers, magazines, etc, just because they were different avenues for speech than the town square, to unwillingly publish things they do not want.  And yet almost no one was making this speech 'argument' that just because you can't use every or your preferred medium for your speech (other people's property) to say whatever you want that it's an issue.

For that matter, what makes something a 'social media site'?  Any site that allows comments? What defines a 'niche site', a category you offered up so that UM can have its current 'censorious' moderating policies (using your definition) but you can have your legislation to force other companies who don't allow comments you want to essentially do the government's bidding.  Are we going to enforce this against say religious sites who want to have comments just about their religion without atheists coming in to debate things?  I think Meta/FB allows setting up of smaller groups, like gaming or knitting or even progressively left groups or whatever, they don't get to moderate either if someone wants to come in and talk about their right wing views?  These should all be 'problems' too since people not being able to post wherever they want today is somehow violating "free speech".  If you just want to single out political speech then we have the task of what that constitutes, which gets real messy in situations like I've discussed when the right wing for example embraces anti-vax junk disproportionately (currently); are anti-vax posts about politics or science?

I usually try to understand where a position is coming from and what it's based on even/especially if I don't agree with it, but I really don't even see a problem here.  I don't even know how to engage with whatever point you are making/suggesting that it's 'a problem' if prospective site owners can't have access to the cheapest alternative, that is just bizarre to me and seems to involve some ignorance about how businesses and markets operate, and why.  Since you like to second-guess and pretend you can determine the real motives of these site owners when they say things like they don't want to host sites that encourage violence, I have little doubt that if this were not right wing comments/sites being refused that you wouldn't think this is a problem, and maybe miraculously discover the speech rights of those private owners that you seem to want to violate by using the power of the government.  Mainly you have an odd definition of what free speech rights actually entail, and are hypocritically not very consistent about what sites should be targeted by legislation. 

Great thoughts 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/14/2024 at 12:55 AM, psyche101 said:

This is a real problem with libertarian free speech advocates fighting to offer the greatest advantage to the worst people. 

 

Quote

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing equality before the law and civil rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.

You confuse Libertarianism with Anarchism.

Quote

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including the state and capitalism.

Any Libertarian will be for specific forms or types speech being illegal and all other speech not being censored by the government or at the governments request except in the case of national security.  It's really not that difficult of a concept for most but you seem to have a very hard time comprehending the difference.  If it weren't for Libertarian values your rights would be similar to the rights your ancestors had a couple hundred years ago.

MV5BMDFmY2U3YTAtZDk4My00MTMwLWEzNDMtY2Jj

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

You confuse Libertarianism with Anarchism.

I honestly don't think so. Modern libertarianism embraces anarchy. They have become inextricably linked. 

I feel your romantic ideas of what you are supporting has clouded your view to a modern libertarian movement which just offers the most protections to the worst elements of society by taxing the majority. You don't seem to recognise that it's only crap bags benefiting from modern libertarian movements today. 

Honestly, movements is an apt description there. Pun intended. 

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Any Libertarian will be for specific forms or types speech being illegal and all other speech not being censored by the government or at the governments request except in the case of national security.  It's really not that difficult of a concept for most but you seem to have a very hard time comprehending the difference.  If it weren't for Libertarian values your rights would be similar to the rights your ancestors had a couple hundred years ago.

MV5BMDFmY2U3YTAtZDk4My00MTMwLWEzNDMtY2Jj

And it's time you moved out of that place in your head where you think you're being noble and dip your toes into the real world where all your doing is giving violent right wingers a voice and public platform. A couple hundred years ago things were different. We were on the verge of the industrial revolution. 

Guess what. We, the public don't actually want your help, or your concern. It's an outdated hindrance. You've given violent thugs a platform. Great. That helps everyone how??

You don't acknowledge the other side of the libertarian coin. Today's libertarians aren't the noble people who fought for their rights. They fight for their conservative views. The right to demean and hate. Separation of society.  Libertarians did good work once upon a time. Thanks to modern libertarians, it's not held in the same regard it once was. 

Maga has convinced themselves they are doing the world a favour too, but they aren't. It's just for them. Perhaps you should stand back and look at your values. I think they satisfy your ideology but are outdated ideas that require a modern view which you're just not taking into account. 

No, libertarians did not carve a great new society for today. They played a part like everyone did. Many people have strived for a better world and I think the one thing we have learned is there is no one fits all solution. 

How is fighting for people like Tommy Robinson and Lauren Southern to speak publically making the world a better place? How does their platform for racism hate and division make the world better? 

Because that's what modern libertarians have turned to to keep active. And it's not a benefit to society as a whole. Being upset over Canada hate laws isn't noble either, it just illustrates a disconnect from today's world and the new challenges we face. The difference isn't hard to comprehend, I just don't think that you comprehend what libertarianism has become and what role it's playing today. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Modern libertarianism embraces anarchy. They have become inextricably linked. 

I feel your romantic ideas of what you are supporting has clouded your view to a modern libertarian movement which just offers the most protections to the worst elements of society by taxing the majority. You don't seem to recognise that it's only crap bags benefiting from modern libertarian movements today. 

Honestly, movements is an apt description there. Pun intended. 

And it's time you moved out of that place in your head where you think you're being noble and dip your toes into the real world where all your doing is giving violent right wingers a voice and public platform. A couple hundred years ago things were different. We were on the verge of the industrial revolution. 

Guess what. We, the public don't actually want your help, or your concern. It's an outdated hindrance. You've given violent thugs a platform. Great. That helps everyone how??

You don't acknowledge the other side of the libertarian coin. Today's libertarians aren't the noble people who fought for their rights. They fight for their conservative views. The right to demean and hate. Separation of society.  Libertarians did good work once upon a time. Thanks to modern libertarians, it's not held in the same regard it once was. 

Maga has convinced themselves they are doing the world a favour too, but they aren't. It's just for them. Perhaps you should stand back and look at your values. I think they satisfy your ideology but are outdated ideas that require a modern view which you're just not taking into account. 

No, libertarians did not carve a great new society for today. They played a part like everyone did. Many people have strived for a better world and I think the one thing we have learned is there is no one fits all solution. 

How is fighting for people like Tommy Robinson and Lauren Southern to speak publically making the world a better place? How does their platform for racism hate and division make the world better? 

Because that's what modern libertarians have turned to to keep active. And it's not a benefit to society as a whole. Being upset over Canada hate laws isn't noble either, it just illustrates a disconnect from today's world and the new challenges we face. The difference isn't hard to comprehend, I just don't think that you comprehend what libertarianism has become and what role it's playing today. 

Nope.  Factually the people you are referring to are authoritarian not Libertarian.  They want to limit currently legal free speech (just like you :yes:), they want to enforce their religious moral code through draconian anti-freedom legislation (see abortion or immigration), they want to control the market (tariffs, government grants for non-profitable industries, corporations are people, etc).  They are not libertarian in any way.  You don't know what or who you are talking about.

 

 

Edited by OverSword
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that we have a court case going on right now where a politician was caught red handed manipulating media to silence negative stories about him and promote only positive stories- yet no one has brought it up yet.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I find it interesting that we have a court case going on right now where a politician was caught red handed manipulating media to silence negative stories about him and promote only positive stories- yet no one has brought it up yet.

You mean like trying to quash fake stories about Trump having an illegitimate child out of wedlock? I can't think of a single reason why that story need to run! In fact, if that story does run I am certain I would be discussing the poor standards of media reporting, and how they love to smear Trump with any low blow they can get their hands on, even if it's an utter lie! And there would be some poor TDS riddled schmuvk who would be posting on UM about Trump's illegitimate kids despite no evidence.

Edited by Link of Hyrule
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You mean like trying to quash fake stories about Trump having an illegitimate child out of wedlock? I can't think of a single reason why that story need to run!

Free speech?  First amendment rights?  Because it's wrong for politicans to use media to silence certain stories and promote others?

Any of the arguments you have used in the past to codemn this type of action/behaviour before it applied to Trump?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Free speech?  First amendment rights?  Because it's wrong for politicans to use media to silence certain stories and promote others?

Any of the arguments you have used in the past to codemn this type of action/behaviour before it applied to Trump?

Lying in the media is not an acceptable alternative to that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Link of Hyrule said:

Lying in the media is not an acceptable alternative to that!

Do you have proof that it is a lie?  Who is the one that gets to determine what is "True" and thus uncensored?  Asking for a multitude of COVID threads on this forum.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

Do you have proof that it is a lie?  Who is the one that gets to determine what is "True" and thus uncensored?

I can prove it as much as you can prove Joe Biden hasn't had an illegitimate kid!

 

Just now, Gromdor said:

  Asking for a multitude of COVID threads on this forum.

Nor relevant to this discussion!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I can prove it as much as you can prove Joe Biden hasn't had an illegitimate kid!

 

Nor relevant to this discussion!

So you can't prove it and are in favor of censoring things just because you disagree with it or think it is untrue? 

And the COVID example is totally relevant in demonstrating inconsistent standards on your part PA.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

So you can't prove it and are in favor of censoring things just because you disagree with it or think it is untrue?

You would support a news agency reporting that Joe Biden had an illegitimate child, despite a total lack of evidence???? 

I doubt that! 

 

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

 

And the COVID example is totally relevant in demonstrating inconsistent standards on your part PA.

 

 

You're trying to bring irrelevant topics into this discussion. I don't even know what you are referring to, whether you are speaking of me specifically, or whether this is a commentary on how media reported the news, or what? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You would support a news agency reporting that Joe Biden had an illegitimate child, despite a total lack of evidence???? 

I doubt that! 

 

You're trying to bring irrelevant topics into this discussion. I don't even know what you are referring to, whether you are speaking of me specifically, or whether this is a commentary on how media reported the news, or what? 

Oh dear lord.  I know you are Paranoid Android, your speaking (typing) style is fairly distinct.

Did your views on censorship change when you changed your name?  

You used to be a die hard advocate in the belief that "Main stream media is being manipulated to provide a narrative." and always complained about it.

Now we have a trial where it was spelled out in step by step detail how Trump used a media outlet for years (if not decades) to manipulate media into providing a narrative and now you are all of a sudden pro-censorship.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Oh dear lord.  I know you are Paranoid Android, your speaking (typing) style is fairly distinct.

Did your views on censorship change when you changed your name?  

You used to be a die hard advocate in the belief that "Main stream media is being manipulated to provide a narrative." and always complained about it.

Now we have a trial where it was spelled out in step by step detail how Trump used a media outlet for years (if not decades) to manipulate media into providing a narrative and now you are all of a sudden pro-censorship.  

I am PA, never shied away from that (many of my posts are ended with a salutation* to that effect). 

I see what you are trying to say, but you're trying to assign guilt for withholding a story that is completely false and does nothing except harm Trump's election chances, and I cannot agree that this is an issue worthy of the same attention.

Bottom line - if the story ran and was proven false I can guarantee you that I'd be sitting here complaining about how the media runs lies and smear campaigns (and there are many people with a predisposition to hate Trump who would be using those articles as evidence that Trump has a secret lovechild and how this is more evidence that he's not worthy of being president, despite a lack of evidence). Instead you're sitting here complaining that Trump's team paid money to keep such a libellous story from being run.  

Maybe it is contradictory but I'd much rather be on my side of things than on yours :) 

Thanks for the chat.

~ Link (formerly PA)
*this kind of salutation, in case you haven't seen it on any of my other posts - i don't close of every post with a salutation, I'll try to do it more often*

Edited by Link of Hyrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, OverSword said:

Nope.  Factually the people you are referring to are authoritarian not Libertarian.  They want to limit currently legal free speech (just like you :yes:), they want to enforce their religious moral code through draconian anti-freedom legislation (see abortion or immigration), they want to control the market (tariffs, government grants for non-profitable industries, corporations are people, etc).  They are not libertarian in any way.  You don't know what or who you are talking about.

 

 

And yet everytime some violent person or group is pulled up for their behaviour or actions there you are like any activist. Maybe your not what you think either. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And yet everytime some violent person or group is pulled up for their behaviour or actions there you are like any activist. Maybe your not what you think either. 

Example?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/23/2024 at 12:27 AM, OverSword said:

Вы путаете либертарианство с анархизмом.

Любой либертарианец будет в определенных формах или типах высказывания считаться незаконными, а все остальные высказывания не будут подвергаться цензуре со стороны правительства или по запросу правительства, за исключением случаев национальной безопасности. На самом деле для большинства это не такая уж и сложная концепция, но вам, похоже, очень трудно понять разницу. Если бы не либертарианские ценности, ваши права были бы аналогичны правам ваших предков пару сотен лет назад.

MV5BMDFmY2U3YTAtZDk4My00MTMwLWEzNDMtY2Jj I believe dedicating excessive time to social media purely for entertainment purposes may not be the wisest choice, especially considering the vast array of opportunities it offers. That's why, when expanding my business, I opted to focus on utilizing social networks to their fullest potential. In pursuit of this strategy, I required to buy tiktok followers, and this resource proved to be instrumental to my needs. It's gratifying to leverage such platforms effectively for business growth.

Simply amazing! And I believe that such a condition is simply necessary for social networks.

Edited by KeithSwartz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, OverSword said:

Example?

Your Lauren Southern thread about her lying about Australia that Saru pulled. 

You wanted her to have the opportunity to start riots and lie extensively about the country. You felt she was being suppressed for not being allowed to start riots and lie extensively. Because libertarianism. Dumb. 

Then there's the outright lies you posted about immigration camps comparing them to prisons because some right wing idiot said so and you wanted to protect his right to lie, and even tried to support his lies. Dumb.

Always a scumbag. Always controversial. Always an element of violence. And yet you fear a punch up to a point you think that you have the right to bring a gun to a fist fight. Unbelievable. 

Your views benefit lies and scumbags. You're not close to the romantic notion you have in your head. You're not helping anyone, your just playing out a fantasy in your head. 

I'm sure plenty of hate groups and bigots appreciate your efforts though. You make life easier for them to force their vulgar views on society. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Your Lauren Southern thread about her lying about Australia that Saru pulled. 

You wanted her to have the opportunity to start riots and lie extensively about the country. You felt she was being suppressed for not being allowed to start riots and lie extensively. Because libertarianism. Dumb. 

Then there's the outright lies you posted about immigration camps comparing them to prisons because some right wing idiot said so and you wanted to protect his right to lie, and even tried to support his lies. Dumb.

Always a scumbag. Always controversial. Always an element of violence. And yet you fear a punch up to a point you think that you have the right to bring a gun to a fist fight. Unbelievable. 

Your views benefit lies and scumbags. You're not close to the romantic notion you have in your head. You're not helping anyone, your just playing out a fantasy in your head. 

I'm sure plenty of hate groups and bigots appreciate your efforts though. You make life easier for them to force their vulgar views on society. 

Right. :rolleyes: Links please.  I don't recall anything about Lauren Southern but if I did argue that it was not justified she being kicked out of some country it certainly was not because it would prevent her from starting a riot which I felt she had the right to start.  That's just a stupid assertion and typical of your over the top examples not based in reality projecting meaning onto something I said which I obviously did not imply.  You do that a lot.  If Saru locked the thread then find it and prove it.  Do so as well with me comparing immigration camps with prisons.  Doubt I ever said such a thing because I don't believe it.  I NEVER said anything about bringing a gun to a fist fight.  I don't own a gun.  Yet another over the top misrepresentation of my words.  I said I would grab the nearest thing I could use as a weapon and feel completely justified in using lethal force if necessary because if I was in a fight it would have to be forced on me as I would always just walk away except possibly in defense of someone else. You wouldn't know a Libertarian if one was standing in front of you defending your right to live your life how you see fit as long as it did not interfere with another persons right to do so as well. :st  What's really hilarious is that you think I'm wrong for believing that legal speech should not be censored.  How stupid is that?  Answer: very.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

Right. :rolleyes: Links please.  I don't recall anything about Lauren Southern but if I did argue that it was not justified she being kicked out of some country it certainly was not because it would prevent her from starting a riot which I felt she had the right to start.  That's just a stupid assertion and typical of your over the top examples not based in reality projecting meaning onto something I said which I obviously did not imply.  You do that a lot.  If Saru locked the thread then find it and prove it.  Do so as well with me comparing immigration camps with prisons.  Doubt I ever said such a thing because I don't believe it. 

Gutless.

I'm not a mod. I can't bring back deleted threads. You knew that though so you took the cop out.

You don't own your words. I didn't expect more than that though. 

They were deleted because you spread lies. Simple as that. 

Your Lauren Southern support for violence concerned this incident 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/youre-not-welcome-southerns-runin-with-sydney-police/news-story/2b2fbdeac65fad76b11ffa3dd176dfac%3famp

Pretty sure this was the incident you claimed was prison camp style 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-01/multiple-people-escape-howard-springs-quarantine-facility-darwin/100663994

 

Nobody needs your right wing libertarian opinion on these matters. 

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

I NEVER said anything about bringing a gun to a fist fight.  I don't own a gun.  Yet another over the top misrepresentation of my words.  I said I would grab the nearest thing I could use as a weapon and feel completely justified in using lethal force if necessary because if I was in a fight it would have to be forced on me as I would always just walk away except possibly in defense of someone else.

You have said many times that fist fights scare you are you think a gun is justified in defence. 

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

You wouldn't know a Libertarian if one was standing in front of you

You think you would though huh. 

10 hours ago, OverSword said:

defending your right to live your life how you see fit as long as it did not interfere with another persons right to do so as well. :st  What's really hilarious is that you think I'm wrong for believing that legal speech should not be censored.  How stupid is that?  Answer: very.

Legal speech like nazi public parades or people promoting racism aren't on the top of anyone's list for freedoms. Don't knock yourself out. We are better off without your ideology. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I'm not a mod. I can't bring back deleted threads. You knew that though so you took the cop out.

You don't own your words. I didn't expect more than that though. 

They were deleted because you spread lies. Simple as that. 

Your Lauren Southern support for violence concerned this incident 

Regardless of whether this is a thread I started and was deleted (doubtful) I guarantee you misrepresented why I felt her expulsion was wrong.  I'm not going to click. It proves not one thing about a position I may or may not have taken.

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Pretty sure this was the incident you claimed was prison camp style 

 

Never NEVER happened.  Also not going to click the link.  It proves not one thing about a position I may or may not have taken.

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You have said many times that fist fights scare you are you think a gun is justified in defence. 

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

If someone else wants to use a gun against an attacker fine with me.  But that's not what you said is it? You stated I said I would use a gun.  Never said that, I don't even own one.

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Legal speech like nazi public parades or people promoting racism aren't on the top of anyone's list for freedoms. Don't knock yourself out. We are better off without your ideology. 

I support the right of nazis, communists and racists to gather publicly and it's perfectly legal.  I do not support their ideologies and would not attend.  If legislation passes to outlaw those groups let me know and we can argue about if that was a good idea or not and why at the time.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2024 at 1:04 AM, OverSword said:

Regardless of whether this is a thread I started and was deleted (doubtful) I guarantee you misrepresented why I felt her expulsion was wrong.  I'm not going to click. It proves not one thing about a position I may or may not have taken.

That it was deleted says it all 

Gutless for not owning your posts. 

On 4/27/2024 at 1:04 AM, OverSword said:

Never NEVER happened.  Also not going to click the link.  It proves not one thing about a position I may or may not have taken.

Yep. Happened 

Gutless for not owning your posts

On 4/27/2024 at 1:04 AM, OverSword said:

If someone else wants to use a gun against an attacker fine with me.  But that's not what you said is it? You stated I said I would use a gun.  Never said that, I don't even own one.

I said you would bring a gun to a fist fight. And you pretty much confirmed that above. Your good with it. 

On 4/27/2024 at 1:04 AM, OverSword said:

I support the right of nazis, communists and racists to gather publicly and it's perfectly legal.  I do not support their ideologies and would not attend.  If legislation passes to outlaw those groups let me know and we can argue about if that was a good idea or not and why at the time.

Of course you support 

Hate groups are who get the most benefit from your views. That's what I've been saying all along. And here you are proving it. Public spaces should be safe places. Hate groups don't foster safe places 

You think you're a hero but you're actually a menace. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I said you would bring a gun to a fist fight. And you pretty much confirmed that above. Your good with it. 

On 4/26/2024 at 8:04 AM, OverSword said:

I said if someone defends themselves with a gun against someone assaulting them I'm fine with that.  That's not the same as saying I would bring a gun to a fist fight.  You're really not as bright as you think you are when all of your arguments require you to falsely represent what I say.  Either argue honestly or go away.

 

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Hate groups are who get the most benefit from your views.

Explain how hate groups benefit more than you or I that legal speech can't be censored by the government? 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

I said if someone defends themselves with a gun against someone assaulting them I'm fine with that.  That's not the same as saying I would bring a gun to a fist fight.  You're really not as bright as you think you are when all of your arguments require you to falsely represent what I say.  Either argue honestly or go away.

You're either really bad at representing yourself or your just too arrogant to stick to your posting. 

A gun is an unfair advantage. An unfair advantage is for cowards. 

9 hours ago, OverSword said:

Explain how hate groups benefit more than you or I that legal speech can't be censored by the government? 

By allowing hate groups to permeate public spaces to preach hate and in some cases incite violence. 

If you feel Nazis have a place in the public space go stand with them. The majority of us are more than happy to let you all know what we think of your preference to bleed hate and potential threats into public spaces. 

I don't know what you think your bring to society but it's not what you think it is. Understand that your efforts and views are largely unappreciated by the majority. Allowing hate groups to soil public places because dat ebil gubbermint is just paranoia. The end result is a worse situation regardless of your personal fears. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.