Having run a big account, I can see they’re making a lot of mistakes.

TBH their Twitter is really, really bad. I don’t think Elon Musk personally has to put his finger on any scale. I thought EFF would be his thing too, no?

Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming.

This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.

EFF is more like classical liberal. They generally oppose regulation of speech/tech and oppressive laws like DMCA 1201 (anti-circumvention) but promote things in the nature of antitrust like right-to-repair. Everything is required to be crammed into a box now so that often gets called "left" because the tech companies (also called "left") have found it more effective to pay off the incumbents in GOP-controlled states when they don't like right-to-repair laws, although Hollywood ("left" again) are traditionally the ones pressuring Democrats to sustain the horrible anti-circumvention rule when they're in power.

It turns out trying to fit everything into one of two boxes is pretty unscientific.

Yeah and he put together an insane chart + data that's not tethered to reality.

X: 1,500 likes, 50 comments, 846 shares.

Facebook: 58 likes, 8 comments, 22 shares.

Bluesky: 94 likes, 3 comments, 51 shares.

I find it really hard to believe that even with lower views on X than the past, that it's literally not worth the tiny about of effort to get their messages posted there.

By analogy, think of news websites that are generally paywalled, take ages to load and only offer 'USAID propaganda'. A lot of people just won't open a link to the New York Times and their ilk because of this friction. You might as well get the same story elsewhere.

Twitter/X has become similarly 'meh', perhaps even more so. A 'tweet' is measured in characters, originally SMS message length, now biglier, but still small. In theory you could get a feature length article on the NYT-style bloated news websites, so the friction could be worth the effort - in theory. But for a tweet? Why bother, particularly if it wants you to provide your age and other details that shouldn't be necessary, but marketing dictates otherwise.

As for Musk and his politics, I don't think Bezos is any better, as for Rupert Murdoch and the other press barons, they are equally odious. Yet, if the product is any good, I can overlook such awkward realities to a certain extent. If Amazon can get me that vital part I need tomorrow rather than 'in twenty eight days', then take my money!

I am a moderately heavy user of Telegram as I prefer to get curated news from there. If bad things are happening, I want to get my news from the natives, not from the 'Epstein' empire. Much is cross posted to X but much is not. All considered, nothing beats Telegram, particularly as far as friction is concerned, it makes X, WhatsApp, Instagram and much else seem to have a dated user interface.

IMHO, EFF need to embrace Telegram, not least because it reaches people in parts of the world where the EFF message resonates.

what tradeoff?

Seriously, if you're working on anything worthwhile, you can wait for the weekly digest. Everything else just seems like hyperiding.

This is just busy work chasing nothing but vanity.

Like asking heroin addicts what heroin they prefer. What an utter waste time.

Leading with the supposed "nazi salute" really detracts from the other, much more legitimate and substantive issues you raised.

Correct me if I'm wrong: I'm asserting that having a principle is an inalienable belief that actually guides behavior, not selectively applies to behavior.

Though generally: yes, I agree: get off twitter, and I'd go a step further and say..minimize all social media involvement.

What is worse is those aren't shitty ad impressions. Interested people will be following maybe even expecting to see them. In addition and ironically also other interested people will be algorithmed in to their orbit.

E.g. I read more of a blogger I like because I follow him on LinkedIn over following RSS feed.

I'm actually with you on basic philosophy but the weird political snipes undercut everything they're doing and I can't support any nonprofi who stonewalls questions about what they're doing with my money.

This is completely performative, and I personally don't think it's the best move.

What is your working definition of freedom? I'm interested in replying but I'd like to engage with you on your terms.

Threads has more daily active users than X and is growing quickly vs. the latter’s cratering usage rates. Demographics trend younger, too.

I'm on Twitter/X, but none of the other social media sites they list (I mean, I'm on LinkedIn, but not in any sort of regular way). So their reach to me personally is diminished. Obviously I'll still go on their website if I want to keep up with their activities and I'll probably still hear relevant news about them though.

Since they didn't give the impressions for the other platforms, how can you make this conclusion?

You must have simply missed it, because it was recorded and everyone with eyes can clearly see it. Maybe it's just not spread very widely in your media bubble.

Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw

PS: You're defending a billionaire who would poison the water in your grandmother's neighborhood to save a few cents on his tax bill. Poor people like you mean nothing to him. He even treats his daughter like shit, just because she was brave enough to live her life as her own. He's a morally bankrupt person, who got where he is by treading on and abusing people, just like any other billionaire.

Don't trust my words, just look at the salute yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_salute_controversy

It is quite distinct from the multiple Nazi salutes he gave at the Trump rally.

They said nothing of this in TFA, all they talked about was decimated view count. The obvious conclusion is X is censoring them, like they pretty much do to anybody that Elon feels like censoring.

That being said, there is no disguise.

"Young folks, folks of color, queer folks". This is not the case.

> Last year, our 1,500 posts earned roughly 13 million impressions for the entire year.

Their YouTube channel reports 2,759,491 views in total, since 2006. So while X may be a fraction of what it was, it's still a significant multiple of at least one of the other channels they are happy to use.

What kind of activist org turns down the opportunity to reach 13 million people for essentially zero cost? One that has a different reason for doing so. The subtext is clear.

I'm neither a supporter nor opponent; I only see the EFF's rhetoric as way for themselves and their supporters to lie about their mutual contempt for their opponents.

I personally don't understand how anyone can use X anymore. I mean, even before the Musk takeover, there were plenty of loud (or, IMO, extremely obnoxious) voices from all sides, and I was generally not a fan because it just seemed designed to amplify the extremes and petty disagreements. Now, though, whenever I go there it is just a steaming pile of useless shit. Like I would look at a tweet or two from people whose perspectives I find insightful (even for folks I sometimes strongly disagree with), and the top comments under any of these people's posts is now the equivalent of "But your daddy is a giant poopie head!!" It doesn't even have any entertainment value, it's just pointless drivel where I can feel myself losing brain cells for every post I read.

People don’t use social media in the same way they did ten years ago.

And in any case, they’re still getting massive viewership on X by most people’s standards, surely?

I’m not convinced “X is declining” is a good faith argument here.

Experience, success, credentials none of it matters anymore. The left thinks everything on the right is stupid and evil, the right does the same, and everyone drinks their own kool aid.

We’ve all stopped listening.

exactly why so many are turning it off, trying to get healthy, not just looking for another echo chamber to feed their egos

Yes, but their ideology _was_ free-speech absolutism. This move, and this statement, suggests that they're moving away from that ideology to one of selectively free speech.

And like it or not - Twitter is still the preferred communication platform of quite a few influential people.

Nikita says they were "never" deboosted, but Musk said they were going to do that and it was a huge topic...?

https://x.com/nikitabier/status/2041911302541730237?s=20

He says here about an interface change. I've noticed this change. The sites are opening in a kind of sub window with the feedback UI still visible. I found this annoying but now I see the point.

If they spent any appreciable amount of time replying to people and not just themselves, their X impressions would be considerably larger. X themselves has been clear that engagement weights impressions/recommendations/algorithmic display, and EFF has done none of that.

It looks to me like a people at EFF problem, not an X problem.

Or they're tweeting something their followers don't care enough about to engage with, so the platform stops funneling their post to other followers.

Again, youtubers complain about this same kind of thing regularly. It's almost always just a 'you' problem, your content is simply not engaging.

The problem for the EFF is that they don't have anywhere else to go with nearly the reach of Twitter. Bluesky has only 15 million monthly active users. They could pin their hopes on Facebook, but it's hard to think of a criticism of Twitter that wouldn't apply to Facebook.

Basically the problem for EFF and a lot of the progressive activist orgs out there is that they want a mass global audience but a platform with progressive activist moderation, and that was possible in the heyday of the Biden Administration, but starting with Musk's purchase of Twitter and firing of much of the progressive activist staff, together with the loss in the Missouri vs Biden consent decree, it's getting harder to find a truly mass audience social media platform that is willing to enforce progressive activist social norms.

As this realization sinks in, we are seeing organization after organization rage quit the mass market platforms and join more niche platforms that is moderated to their niche taste (e.g. mastodon, bluesky, etc), and this is just one example of that. The EFF of old would never have seen this as a problem, but for the present day EFF it's a big problem.

Another option is a medium without engagement at all. You post your stuff and that's it, for example you can quote/amplify but not comment. No zingers, mocking quote tweets, no clapbacks, etc. I think an organization like the EFF could tolerate that, they want a pure write-only medium where you make a PR announcement that gets lot of attention but is not subject to any disparagement.

Big orgs would love a system like that, but I'm not convinced it could draw a lot of eyeballs.

Huh? This sounds like you mean before elon "free speech!" musk but I can only imagine that, if it ever was a thing, it was a thing after. At some point a competitor's links were being blocked, a little 'oops'ie with 'the algorithm' of course. Facebook also pulled some of those over the years. I don't know about outright bans though, especially concerning Twitter before Musk

At most, X only serves as a marketing/fundraising mechanism. Nothing more. And the EFF doesn't really need to do that as I'm certain their victories and fights will still be shared on X without them.

If EFF had continued to be better at political neutrality, I'm sure many observers would have been surprised at times that it declined to take positions on some of the hot issues of the day. That hypothetical reticence could have been interpreted as cowardice or irrelevance, or as saving up political capital to really focus on a smaller number of more fundamental issues.

For example, I have an ill-formed notion that EFF might be more effective in fighting against age verification mandates right now if the organization were seen as less leftist. Among other things, this is because there's one narrative where age verification is something the right wants and the left doesn't. I say "ill-formed" because I haven't been close to this issue and haven't seen exactly how various audiences have parsed it in practice.

The culture war part of this question is how good or bad it is when it's easy for young people to talk to strangers in spaces that aren't overseen by adults (or approved by their parents). I guess forms of this issue are possibly among the most divisive questions in the world.

However, you could also look at questions like online anonymity, privacy, data breaches, competition, ad targeting, decentralization, FOSS, and user control of technology, which are all being impacted by these measures. EFF cares about these things a lot and has cared about them for a long time. I would hypothesize that some of those concerns are now getting dismissed by audiences that think EFF's "true objection" is anti-parental-control and that the other issues are just noise. Again, I haven't been close to this and I'm not positive that this is how it's actually playing out.

There is a conscious effort to focus more directly and consistently on helping groups that are seen as oppressed.

There was an associated mission statement change sometime around 2015

> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is dedicated to ensuring that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all the people of the world.

(The "for all the people of the world" part is doing a lot of work there.)

It has probably helped increase their raw numbers, but it has also induced "mission drift".

In any case, my point was more about the silly idea that it's imperative for any organization to be on the 8th-largest US site.

AFAIK Reddit is the last mainstream social media site with such niceities, even mbasic.facebook.com is gone as of 2024.

1. These are not reasons they listed for leaving X. These are lists of problems they identified on Twitter. They did not leave until 2026.

2. Yes, you get better transparency with Mastodons, owing to the fact Mastodons are usually operated and moderated by people with an interest in transparency. BlueSky moderation is also done more transparently (see its labeling system) and in ways that are less absolute (see BlackSky, etc).

3. Yes, you get better user control with Mastodons and BlueSkys. There are third party apps which work well, owing to them having open APIs. BlueSky - Mastodon bridges are common.

4. It's not "only X". EFF hasn't posted to identi.ca in 13 years, Flickr in one year, or comp.org.eff.news since 2000.

Twitter account bans had always been so broken that account bans, account ban evasions, tweet deboosting avoidance, etc. has all, long, been natural parts of life on it, since at least 2010s. I might as well argue that it would not have gone so far "down", psychologically, to the point that its old management would have sold the entire thing to Musk and for people to genuinely believe in positive outcome under him.

The very least you guys could have done it is to recognize the fact that inconsistent, unclear, unenforced policies of old Twitter existed && are not consistent with yours. You guys don't even do that. How even.

I've previously written to the EFF on it with no response.

The entire point is to invite/allow otherwise “good” people to be able to think it’s not entirely serious, and that caring is pearl-clutching and is lame.

That way they can vote for their tax cuts, wear their “team” colors, and keep voting for “their” party.

It happens with successful sports teams all the time. Tiger Woods just got in his fourth (likely under the influence) car wreck, and sports media is already making excuses or talking about how hard he must have it. It’s the same process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semite_and_Jew

> A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize natural distinctions.

Racism and bigotry are not errant additions to conservatism, they're a logical extension of one of its foundational pillars. (Though that is not to say that the left is not without its racism and bigotry as well, it's just less of a natural fit)

I am sure you put these people in the same basket by no logical reason, as they are very different and the reason behind each of them is very different. As an Eastern European I understand a bit more Orban and Putin, I don't have to agree with them to understand how things work, and they the 3 have almost nothing in common but being targeted by the political left as the enemy.

Even just the disingenuous boosting of obvious lies that are convenient to his worldview (claiming genuine curiosity), by a supposedly intelligent man, is gross enough.

Only Titanic and Avatar earned more money (inflation adjusted) than this film:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

American values?

Manifest destiny? Trail of tears? Japanese internment camps? Madison Square Garden Nazi rallies in the 1930s?

I'd argue that at least 30% of Americans throughout history have been white supremacists. Heck, the country was founded by rebelling against the British, that amongst other measures (many to do with taxes) wanted to limit Western expansion against non White peoples.

Shouldn't like, half of Oklahoma - LEGALLY - belong to Native Americans? Based on treaties the US has signed.

To say there's no growing movement towards Nazi and anti-Jewish ideologies is to be willfully ignorant of the world around you.

Of course, as expected, the Elon Musk Defense League showed up right on time. Does he give out $100 for every post defending his honor online?

But I've yet to see someone show video of a prominent democrat doing the same salute as Musk. Which is probably why it's left as an exercise for the reader to find.

That said, we don't need to speculate about his salute when you can look directly at the slop he posts on Twitter.

It seemed pretty blatant to me if you watch the whole video, the chest pound and the clear arm/hand extension really makes it difficult to see as anything else.

It was distinctly different from the stills of other politicians waving that often get used as comparison by trolls trying to defend it... when you compare videos the difference is not even questionable.

No, that doesn't work here.

Also, when have they joked about it being a Nazi salute after the fact like Elon Musk did? https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1882406209187409976

If they did, they'd make international news for the same reason.

They did not. A freeze frame of someone waving their hand ain't remotely close to the specific "from my heart to the stars" gesture that Elon Musk did twice in a row.

Which doesn't even matter as much as his long, established history of pushing white-supremacist views, supporting white supremacist movements, and using neo-nazi dog whistles (like posting 14 flag emojis at 14:14PM EST).

You probably have a speechwriter, and a PR consultant, and hey, why not a body language consultant. When you get on stage, you're going to present exactly the message you mean to. Anything less would be a waste of your time, right?

Sad to see folks continuing to twist themselves into knots to defend an indefensible gesture performed by an objectively terrible human being.

Which incidentally means that there is by definition no debating tenants of a position that can't survive one minute of good faith review. They're not there to debate. They're there to drown out and silence a truth about material reality that they're upset about.

[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1962406618886492245 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration

https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2030202550259962338

That's just disgusting stuff. Gutter white nationalism.

> business leader throwing those salutes and backing it up with talk of a "white homeland"

It is not every commenter's duty to cite their sources when you have the ability to easily infer the context and search the internet. These are very well documented actions that they refer to. Your attempts to drive sentiment through casting doubt are noticed.

Oh come on. Everyone who's been paying attention enough to warrant having opinions on the subject knows what the reference is to.

But if you just came out of a cryogenic freeze, they're talking about:

1. Elon Musk appearing to be giving a Nazi salute at Trump's inauguration [1]

2. Elon Musk espousing and propagating white supremacist views nearly on a daily basis[2]

3. Elon Musk openly supporting borderline Neo-Nazi[3][4] German AfD party[5]

4. Elon Musk promulgating the myth of "white genocide"[6]

I guess if you somehow missed all of that over the past few years, you wouldn't know what the parent comment is about.

But in that case, you shouldn't be taking a part in this conversation, or opining about what would "infuse[sic] more polarisation".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfYjPzj1Xw

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/12/elon-musk...

[3] https://www.tpr.org/podcast/the-source/2024-07-31/frontline-...

[4] https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/dangerous-liais...

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/25/europe/elon-musk-germany-afd-...

[6] https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0lhfn68

[3]

South Africa's transition away from being a nuclear apartheid state was an objective win for everyone, everywhere.

No, it isn't. It's a distinction without a difference.

Everyone should hate fascism and Nazis.

Why do you think that makes a difference?

Hint: white supremacy (believing whites are superior).

You don't speak for me, and I find you embarrassing.

What exactly means to be culturally white in US?

For most of the past five centuries, the people you're lumping into this thing called 'white' would've considered it fighting words to do so.

To most people “I want to deport minorities” would imply nothing about citizenship status.

Someone with the opposite opinion would frame it as “open borders”, which is an extremist viewpoint globally and also not what people on the left in the US are advocating for.

Media coverage in the US is partisan. This is not an insightful viewpoint or nearly as incendiary as you’re making it out to be.

If you went to a restaurant and it had Confederate flags and pro-slavery memorabilia on the walls, would you think: “Well, that’s just their political view, I don’t have to share it to eat here?”

This helped keep a neutral or at worst ambivalent image of these owners in the minds of the larger public and thus for the most part didn't factor into purchase decisions.

It's now easier than ever to see the true character of a business owner and so it's only natural that customers have begun to factor in this information in purchase/usage decisions.

I don’t expect them to provide a platform for people who make it a point to hate others and advocate for removal of their / my rights and so on.

And like I pointed out, these are not just any old "political views". It's extremist stuff that in the past would have gotten you ostracized. I'm old enough to remember Trent Lott losing his Senate leadership position, for instance.

Also, because of "network effects", simply providing content to Twitter makes the site more valuable.

Regarding your later edit:

> PS. It's amazing to me, and worrying, the anger and vituperation this position is provoking. It was once almost consensus. To take the obvious parallel, buying a newspaper did not imply agreement with the reactionary press baron who owned it.

It really shouldn't surprise you that if you express something that's a bit of a hot take that you'll get a reaction to it. You shouldn't draw any more of an inference from it then "people are passionate about this and some of them disagree with me." Whether people do so amicably or not has at least as much to do with the problems with the Internet as a means of communication as the issue itself.

Regardless, this status quo you refer to was mostly imagined. How much pressure people exert to boycott some platform or another waxes and wanes, because the underlying disagreements wax and wane in relevance. That doesn't really make it a new thing, just a new phase in the same unfolding history.

That's why you refer to the press barons in the era of yellow journalism - the past is not an undifferentiated mass where everyone held some set of values that have fallen from favor. To the people who were alive at the time, things were contentious and in flux and the future was uncertain.

We have a tendency to flatten the past and imagine it as a straightforward narrative where we necessarily arrived at where we are today because of the inevitable interaction of historical forces, and similarly to flatten the people who lived at the time as being caricatures who reliably held a certain set of values. But they disagreed with each other, viewed the future as up for grabs like we do, and they changed their minds as history unfolded.

I didn't leave X when Musk acquired Twitter, and I'm not scandalised by people's political positions, even when they're extreme. But a position and behaviour are two very different things (e.g. being a racist vs making a Nazi salute on live television). I left when the atmosphere amplified by the site became... not for me. I won't go into a pub full of football hooligans not because I disagree with their club affiliation but because their conduct creates an atmosphere that's not for me.

As for newspapers (even ignoring those with political party affiliations, something that was common in newspapers' heyday), most of them preserved some kind of civil decorum, and those that didn't weren't read by those who wanted some decorum. How civilised some environment is is not a matter of political position.

Also, there were always some people of influence that held extreme views. But such people behaving in an uncivilised manner in public was less common (and certainly less accepted).

People aren't raking through Musk's obscure remarks to find something objectionable. Musk has been force-spraying his political opinions onto everyone for quite a while, and people have gotten tired of it.

I mean, there are a lot of conservatives I respect including Mitt Romney, Robert Nisbett, George Will, and Thomas Sowell. Then there are the jerks like William F. Buckley and David Horowitz. [1]

Then there is Musk who's below even them -- but I am not particularly offended by Hobby Lobby or Chicken-Fil-A.

[1] if you want to know the criteria I use take a look at this book https://www.amazon.com/Watch-Right-Conservative-Intellectual...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts

Notwithstanding the above, given how powerful network effects are in social media, I think boycotting platforms operated by people like Musk (I struggle to find the words to fully encompass how repulsive he has become) is arguably one of the more effective forms of protest available to people, and I encourage them to exercise it.

That ... does not hold at all. You wouldn't buy or subscribe to an openly Nazi paper unless you are a full blown white supremacist.

If you were not aware of it, it is not because it wasn't happening. Historically, excepting media companies, left leaning companies have always been outspoken about this while right leaning ones believed in the idea of focusing on business and avoiding overt political messaging.

So companies like Exxon were not broadcasting their views but were still lobbying government directly to change the laws in a way that benefit them (see deregulation).

Since 18th century at the very least; see: anti-slavery sugar boycott[1].

That's if you absolutely ignore the parent's point that political views are things like specifics of policy, not whether some people should be considered subhuman.

>Seems to me that this is what has changed.

It seems so because you don't know history, and didn't do a one-minute Google search for history of successful boycotts.

The article I'm linking is in the "bite-sized" category.

Enjoy.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3rj7ty/revision/7

(And most of the other top-engaged accounts are MAGA accounts: https://www.natesilver.net/p/social-media-has-become-a-freak...)

And I wouldn't call white nationalism a "political" view, like it's some ordinary kind of opinion. That's sanewashing something disgusting and disgraceful. That type needs to get shoved back under the rock they crawled out from.

He was quite self aware of what he did. He immediately followed it up by visiting a rally for the far right in Germany.

(It's also buying into the narrative that X is a ideological monolith. It, of course, is not. But it does lean a different way than other major social media platforms, which means there's a unique opportunity to speak to a different kind of audience!)

meeting people where they are doesn’t inherently mean you support where they are. You just meet the people themselves.

It’s not like X is really gaining anything from the EFF, so it feels a little bit performative. Sure.

(There are still a few scenarios where e.g. if you delete your identity keys by logging out of all your clients, you may get "expected" decryption errors. We're still working on those.)

I'm aware that Telegram is not E2EE by default, and you have to turn it on manually. But it's not true that Elon has long been rallying against Signal. In fact, he endorsed Signal a while back along with Edward Snowden. He also later criticized Signal, as well as other encrypted messaging apps. I remember seeing a podcast clip of him saying something along the lines of "none of them can really protect against the government spying on him", which is true. If you're a high profile individual like Musk, nation states will expend lots of resources to spy on you, and no messaging app will protect you from that. The point of encrypted messaging apps like Signal and Telegram is to raise the per capita cost of doing surveillance so that surveiling the entire population becomes prohibitively expensive, but it doesn't prevent targeted operations on an individual by determined state actors. Having multiple options for those apps is a good thing, even if the apps are individually imperfect, because the government will have to deal with multiple apps instead of one, and that takes more resources.

As for the rest of your comment, those claims aren't true, at least not in the way you stated. DOGE has been accused of mishandling sensitive records, and that part might be true, but I've not seen any evidence pointing towards the mishandling being a part of a evil plot to strengthen the surveillance state and promote fascism. Mass surveillance was already a problem back in 2013 when Snowden leaked it. In fact, it was already a problem before Obama's first term, and Snowden held off on leaking it because he thought Obama would introduce reforms, which didn't happen. The surveillance state is not a recent fascist movement spearheaded by Musk or DOGE. And I think a lot of the vitriol towards Musk is manufactured. He occasionally lies and is prone to manipulation like everyone else, but he's not the supervillain you think he is.

With every other platform, it's hidden away behind the scenes, but there's surely powerful individuals making the big decisions about what to promote and what to suppress.

Rights that apply to people even if you disagree with them, like free speech. Something both the left and the right seem to hate.

Elon Musk takes effective control of government functions by bribing incoming President, uses power to close investigations into his driverless car technology that is currently running amok on city streets causing death and destruction: not technology related, off topic and uninteresting. Downvote and flag.