Slashdot Mirror
After Insisting For Years That Facebook Is Not a Media Company, Zuckerberg Says Just Not a 'Traditional' One (cnet.com)
Mark Zuckerberg is still trying to explain what his company does. The Facebook CEO said in August that the social-networking giant had no ambitions of being a content provider, insisting that Facebook is "a tech company, not a media company." On Wednesday, he appeared to retreat a bit on that statement, painting a slightly different portrait of his company during a Live video chat with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. From a report on CNET: "Facebook is a new kind of platform," Zuckerberg said during the video chat. "It's not a traditional technology company. It's not a traditional media company. You know, we build technology and we feel responsible for how it's used. We don't write the news that people read on the platform, but at the same time we also know that we do a lot more than just distribute the news, and we're an important part of the public discourse." His comments come amid increased criticism that Facebook's news feed algorithms -- the software that picks the first posts you see -- sometimes fan the flames of "fake news" and allow misinformation to thrive. Numerous allegations have been made that fake news shared on Facebook helped Trump win -- a suggestion Zuckerberg initially called "a pretty crazy idea."
Anything else they create is just to keep you on the site. Never forget that you, the user, are what is being sold to companies and govt agencies all around the world.
It's not that he can't describe what it is, it's that he won't describe what it is. If he comes out and says "Hey suckers, we're a platform centered around gathering every bit of information we can about you and bundling it up for the highest bidder." some people might actually start to wise up to the fact that Zuckerberg sees every single one of us a source of income and nothing more. I have no doubt that if was made clear to Facebook that they would not be allowed to harvest user data from their internet drones their altruistic product to unite the planet would run into unforeseen technically difficulties and be wrapped up. And I understand they're a business and have to make money, that's their prerogative. It's the underhanded way they go about it, acting as if they're trying to work for the greater good while often flat out lying to everyone about their business activities. Witness the WhatsApp acquisition. "We will not bind WhatsApp users to their Facebook data". After everything has settled down, "Yeah, about that....". And that's just the most recent example of many.
Then you are a media company.
So it's a "media" company, what's the deal? For many people it's a wonderful free advertising platform. And his story telling keeps him on the front page, win-win. He's a salesman, and he's rich, good for him. This attention he gets is like the infatuation with the royal family, tabloid stuff.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Does it create media. "No" Does it aggregate media and show it to you, "Yes" I guess it depends on what you call other news aggregators. Slashdot, Newsmap, Phys.org I think the median line is Gawker which is probably considered a Media Company although most of the articles are news about links to other news sites.
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
...responsibility. It's not just FB but all the major news media outlets that have dropped the ball on this one. It's simply a lack of fact checking, asking questions, and speaking truth to power, you know, the bit that requires the attention of skilled, experienced humans. We've seen what happens when we leave it up to algorithms. It's time to stop this race to the journalistic bottom and for media corporations to stop publishing and republishing click bait articles with little or no editorial control.
What's "underhanded" about it? Turn it around and use them as your advertising/marketing platform. Nobody cares what he says about the "greater good". That's just more advertising for the tabloid press. There is no need to get so upset over it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
While I'm sure there are many who voted for him without regard for the fake news stories (which generally seemed laughably dumb) - when I talked with people in my own neighborhood that vote for Trump - none of them voted for Trump, they all voted against her in his name - and the reasons were a mixture of the best falsehoods (the ones with kernels of truth in them.) Things that had been repeatedly debunked.
In a sense you can't really blame Trump for being what he is. It's not like it was a surprise. Certain aspects of the GOP have been creating this problem for years. Think about this - there were NINE separate investigations.
One of them was the actual required investigation - which laid the blame on the State Department, Department of Defense, and somewhat on the CIA. This is exactly what you would expect. Clinton herself was cleared of any personal culpability, but as the head of the State Department she was ultimately responsible (and by extension the President.)
Then there were EIGHT more. All of them, one after the other, came to basically the same conclusions as the original - no evidence of 'wrong doing' by Clinton (although Susan Rice - the ambassador to the UN repeatedly came out looking like a dipsh*t - lol.)
That's more time and investigations THAN 9/11!
The best part was the senate and house Republicans were several times caught being dumb enough to admit on camera that these were political attacks on Hillary Clinton (each speaking about their own investigations - not others.)
It is clear an obvious to an objective observer that the entire purpose was to generate as much negative association with her as possible.
I am myself a fairly socially liberal and very fiscally conservative person - but I cannot stand dishonesty (from either side - don't get me started on Nancy the f*cking devil Pelosi) - and I found myself repeatedly having to stand up for the facts (remember those?) when people I know would just mouth whatever they'd recently heard on Fox News that was intentionally inaccurate, incomplete, and often incoherent. I don't subjectively like Hillary anyhow, so that that used to piss me off even more.
OF COURSE fake news helped Trump. It wasn't just Russian//whoever fakes news - it was fake outrage, fake interpretations of real events, fake evaluation of real facts, fake Fox News (MSNBC used to be almost as bad but I avoid both), et cetera.
Now the crazy shit that was coming out during Trump's campaign? It was so obviously fake that at some point you just have to realize that a large number of Americans are stupid. I love America, and I like my neighbors (really), but some of them are idiots. That's just the way things are, and now they're going to get exactly what they voted for.
It makes me sad for America, but we'll recover. The really sh*tty part is that I remember during the primary watching Kasich and thinking "there's a decent, centrist, reasonable man - who would likely be a two term president." I think Rubio could have done a solid job as well (and he would have probably been able to drain some of the swamp with his idealism as well.) To be honest, other than Cruz, Trump, and Carson (wtf?), the remaining candidates (even Bush) were not terrible if not great (although I don't care for Pence much, I think at the national level he'd actually turn out to be less appeasing of the base he currently has to deal with at home.)
Anywho - long story short. Of course the CEO of a publicly traded company will act stupidly unaware of something that's been brought to his attention for months and is obvious to all of us... He's legally required to (in a way.)
Loading...
So what? Let them say what they want. What is it costing you??
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
and told my friends to just use my phone number or email address if they need to call or text or email me,
https://www.google.com/search?...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
The things that really bother me about Facebook are the fake news (on both sides) and the fact that it's a total echo chamber (also on both sides.) Since the platform is designed to pull you in, of course it's going to show you only things you like. A right wing Republican is going to watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh, and that's where almost all of them get their news and opinons from. Same goes on the left -- MSNBC is certainly not going to try to publish an opinion that might alienate one of their assets...er...viewers. Facebook and other online sources are the primary news source for almost everyone under 30, and they use algorithms that fine-tune the narrative for anyone watching. It makes sense because their business model is collecting all your activity and social network, packaging you up and selling you to advertisers.
I think Trump won for two reasons -- first, social media really did have an effect on people. Second, the traditional media were treating him as a complete joke right up until the election. I admit that I was thinking like that too -- how could anyone elect an offensive, chronically bankrupt real estate investor with zero political or military experience? But, Facebook and friends concentrate people's opinions and the anger is strong among many people...when your company has the power to magnify sentiments like this and convince people the world is falling apart, yes, you are a media company whether you like it or not.
Is that they're pro-free speech, except when they aren't. When they aren't, you get punished for nebulous reasons and every pedantic poindexter comes racing out to give the lecture "the first amendment only protects you against the government." Well no shit, but that doesn't change the fact that within the scope of the user agreement there is a claimed standard that applies universally, but is actually applied quite selectively. You actually do have a right to tell Facebook that you think they're full of shit and demean them when they are biased and one-sided because even if they put "it's ultimately up to their judgment" in the service agreement, their judgment is still bound to the framework and rules they laid down. A company cannot publicly proclaim to stand against hate speech and then claim that "kill all the honkies" is ok, but "kill all the n-----s" is hate speech because that is a public proclamation that their own standards in the contract they claim to use against you are going to be enforced in bad faith.
Except we are not going to recover.
Spreading false information used to be difficult - you had to pay phone banks to do push-polling like Nixon did in '46 or your guys had to commit forgeries like Nixon's CRP crew - but the media was somewhat reliable in doing their fact-checking. The rise of talk radio in the 90's started making it somewhat easier because there was no fact-checking but, at least, the larger personalities stayed on point with their respective parties, their audience was made up of their party's constituency, and the media didn't play along. Things got a lot easier in the 00's because the talk radio format moved to TV and expanded the audience but, still, it was the party's message to the party's constituency and the media was still not fully on board. Now, the medium is Facebook: there are no filters, anyone can make up anything, it's reaching the general population, and the media are covering it. Sure, all of the false information from the party is getting through but there's stuff coming from outside now and anything is possible. Can you imagine what would have happened had pizzagate come out earlier in the election cycle?
Dude, you live in a bubble. There are millions of Trump supporters out here. How do you think he won the nomination?
The Tea Party faction of the Republican party has been growing in numbers and power since Rick's famous rant in 2009. The 2010 midterm primaries were a warning shot. There were a few more wins in 2012, but we didn't yet have the strength to get a good candidate for the presidency. The 2014 bloodbath showed that we were on track to take over in 2016, and we did. We didn't win everywhere, but we finally got a candidate who was willing to fight for us, and fight he did. And he won.
You are mourning the end of the uniparty. The Republican party no longer has the same goals as the Democrat party. Your side didn't win. It didn't help that your team started doing the touchdown dance on the 30 yard line, but the real reason is that we got off the sidelines and started pushing back.
See that "Preview" button?
Saying you're not going to link user data and then trying to do so is underhanded. And that wasn't a casual remark Facebook made in passing, it was a requirement made by the EU to allow the acquisition to go through and Facebook agreed to it. Actually that's just lying. Underhanded is going through and changing the options available for users privacy settings and then reseting all users privacy options to the default as a result (and they did that more than once).
It's the hypocrisy of it all that upsets me. The entire reason the Facebook's status as a "media" outlet is in question is Facebook (as well as Twitter and others) are making a big show about fighting "fake news" and "hate speech". Something that has been going on for years. For example, the "birther movement" (link for people not up US politics) started eight years ago and was driven as much by social media as talk radio. Facebook and other beating the drum now did nothing about that, 9/11 truthers or anything else because they were making money off the advertising revenue. However, their gal Clinton lost (for the record I thought both candidates were terrible) and all of a sudden it's the scourge of society and must be eradicated. I have no doubt that if Hillary had won, we wouldn't have heard a peep about this and they'd go on merrily cashing checks off of similar stupidity.
Apple is not a music company...... Was the refrain. No one really anticipated digital music at that time would become a thing.
Facebook I fear is where media headed. Short of public radio, there isn't any large media that isn't advertising based. Facebook is where advertising is headed since it's one of the few billboard you can get someone to stare at for hours a day. So that's where media will go too. Kind of like those ads that surrounded all the TVs in Idiocracy.
It's also the death of the internet from a hyperlinked beast to a walled garden. Trump & the Republicans are going to gut Net neutrality anyway. So the only real question is will comcast allow facebook on it's network without paying.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So much this.
Trump won the GOP nod for a variety of reasons, but chief among them was his non-traditional and pretty much contempt for the entire process. He came off as the personification of Howard Beale, which after eight years is exactly what many Tea party splinters in the GOP wanted. They didn't want rationality, calm cool collective approach to upending the last eight years of the Democratic dictatorship. They were mad as hell and they weren't going to take anymore. Fast forward, once Trump got the GOP nod, the second phase was just to come off as less evil than Hillary Clinton.
For all the vile that came from Trump during the campaign, the continual hammering that kept coming in on Clinton, pretty much sealed the deal. Quick aside, yes that's what it means to be a weak FBI leader, if you get scared that withholding information till after an election might look bad, that makes you weak. Policy is policy and while I'm a big Snowden supporter, you still follow policy if the worse case is PR. Break it all you like though if you're in a moral dilemma. Director Comey's fear that there would be some backlash if he withheld that they found new emails on former Rep Weiner's system is one that directors need to be above. No matter what guy did, someone was going to come out angry, so best bet *would have been* to work on fact finding and reveal when the *facts* were actually there. As opposed to the chicken shit stirring the pot that he actually did. That's my two cents, end quick tangent. A lot of folks were convinced that even if this lady didn't indeed make millions doing favors for warlords, and her husband didn't vigorously and regularly rape children, she's still *the system* and for no logical reason what-so-ever or very weak reasons we shouldn't like *the system* because everything that isn't *the system* (the anti-system) can't be worse than *the system*. And that's where we're at right now. There's still a lot of folks who think, "The anti-system isn't going to be great, but at least it isn't going to be as bad as the system." It literally came down to the public trying to choose the lesser of two evils, and the public at large is not exactly the most ideal way a nation would want to choose that.
Now I don't credit Trump with the wherewithal to actively play the public. His Presidency is built on a combination of an incredibly angry population and sheer dumb luck that all his non-policy kept his nose slightly above Killary. Trump never hit on points or policy that anyone in the rust belt could latch onto, but people there knew the situation was bad, they were angry, and focusing on NAFTA gave them something to channel that into. A part of me thinks that Trump knows he didn't make it into the office on a concrete quality. That he got by simply because a lot of people disliked Hillary more. I think that upsets him and sends him into his Twitter frenzies. Either way, we're going to find out if the anti-system is indeed a better way or not now. At the moment, it looks like a hot mess. Who knows, the entire process might be like clay and the next four years serves to slowly shape up a new GOP with a populace tint, or it could be about as productive as running into a brick wall over and over again. I'm certainly interested to find out, but I'll still hold a lot of skepticism. As much as we hate politics, it's still a thing that requires a bit of knowledge to do right just like many other professions. So this ragtag group of folks lead by a guy who has zero experience at this, sounds like one of those wonderful underdog stories, but the cynic in me just feels like there is going to be a lot of "fake it till you make it" going on.
Your comment really hits on a lot of this. People are angry, people feel the government is incredibly ineffective, and they're tired of the crap that's been going on. So they're willing to take a huge gamble with some serious stakes. Nothing that we can't come back from, but definitely something that not done right is going to sting. Trump became the alternative because of his Jerry Springer like approach to getting mad and channeling other people's anger. Trump became the President because he was the alternative.
If he comes out and says "Hey suckers, we're a platform centered around gathering every bit of information we can about you and bundling it up for the highest bidder." some people might actually start to wise up to the fact that Zuckerberg sees every single one of us a source of income and nothing more.
First off, nearly every company sees every single one of its customers as a source of income. Acknowledging they need to make money is not the same thing as caring about nothing but revenue. A company like Facebook, where keeping customers engaged is the only way to keep them using the product, would not do well if it catered only to the clients providing actual revenue.
Facebook is a platform centered on providing content to users so they use the product. If they are successful with this central strategy, the secondary strategy of maximizing advertising dollars can be successful. Both are obviously very important to the company's success, but don't confuse which one is more important.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I don't know about the other scandals, but travelgate really did happen. She contacted the travel bureau office and asked their director to fire several of his federal employees and hire her relatives instead. He refused, so she had the IRS audit him for embezzlement, then she fired him and his entire staff and replaced them with her and Bill's relatives and friends. Five years later the IRS dropped the case against the director because it determined he had done nothing wrong. She might have been "exonerated" later by Starr, but this is the kind of thing that makes people not want her in office. The case was dropped because the legal counsel against her decided that she *knew* she was lying. Anyone else would have had their career destroyed by this, but she got a pass. Also, the FBI investigated her for it for a grand total of two weeks, one week before she fired the staff and the week after and declared her innocent immediately. That's not much of an investigation, it sounds like a pay off or they were being threatened. Anyone else would have been investigated for months or years for something like that. The fact that it happened again with the confidential email scandal, and that similar pressure were placed on the bureau which made them cave quickly yet again makes her look guilty as sin and also wielding scary amounts of political power.
Did you actually watch the hearings on that? Yes, they "cleared" her. The FBI only recommends prosecution (or not). It'd then go to Loretta Lynch to actually prosecute her, which was obviously not going to happen for a favorite Democratic presidential candidate.
Look here, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ
They found that she lied to Congress, repeatedly (a crime, albeit one punished far too little--see, e.g., Clapper). They found that she had a ridiculous amount of classified info on an uncleared server, some of which was so sensitive, they couldn't even describe it to Congress. We had the subpoena for Wiener's laptop unsealed yesterday, discussing that it's a criminal probe and telling us that the full extent of the investigation is not known to the public. Talking heads were saying it wasn't enough, but it details how much top secret information was on there if you actually read the damned thing. The "news" agencies, of course, don't bother linking to it for the most part, so I can see why people would get confused.
Why was that modded as Troll? Still raging against Trump or something?
Dude, you live in a bubble. There are millions of Trump supporters out here. How do you think he won the nomination?
Nearly everyone excited about either a Clinton or Trump Presidency is/was in a bubble. I certainly am. I grew up in a rural area that overwhelmingly voted for Trump, but I cannot honestly say I can relate or fully understand a large portion of voters who voted Trump. I understand those who had 2nd amendment, abortion, and/or LGBT issues as their primary issues (and probably a few more I'm missing). I strongly disagree with them, but they will most likely get what they want out of a Trump presidency.
But Trump voters who take pride in rejecting educated experts, who overwhelmingly have stated Trump's campaign rhetoric was dangerously unrealistic to the point of being outright lies, are ones I cannot relate to. To some extent I can see how people who feel they have nothing to lose don't care about the risk of significantly damaging our country. But considering the experts also agree they would be hurt far more than the educated elite, I still cannot understand people who think through their decisions so poorly.
Ultimately you have people who have been incapable of keeping up with a changing economy who think they are more capable of predicting the economic ramifications of a Trump presidency than actual professional economists. Instead of trying to learn from those who have been more capable of adjusting, these working class voters convince themselves they personally are the enlightened ones and the educated elite are ignorant of the "real issues". These voters can look at 9 economists saying one thing and 1 economist saying the opposite, and think they are qualified to claim the outlier is correct.
On the other hand the wealthy of the world, which they claim to respect, go on making more and more money hiring and listening to those same educated professionals the working class rejects. It is such backward thinking that I cannot wrap my head around it. In my bubble, it seems the correct answer is to reject that thinking and find a way to change it, not embrace it. I simply cannot see how placating this behavior helps anyone except the demagogues who exploit it.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
To mitigate the problem, don't believe the lies. Just assume they are lying and move on. Keep personal stuff off the internet and simply use it as a business/advertising medium. That way the more info you spread (and they spread for you) is to your benefit. The opportunities far outweigh the liabilities. Don't let emotion and tabloid politics cloud your judgement
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Don't you bodyshame AC's whore of a mother.
you write in circles, but the main issue is opening up the land border to 100s of millions of poor foreign nationals, and even importing foreigners at public expense from the overseas population that numbers in the billions. No one wants to face this issue, because it means that the Democrat Party needs to be disbanded and purged, as in thousands executed and 10s of thousands imprisoned, but people are scared of conflict
Hi, we were talking about facebook? Trump Derangement Syndrome strikes again. OK, I'll bite.
Trump's unexpected election victory has created a series of dilemmas for news organizations, beyond the fact that almost all of them got so much wrong. Trust in media was already declining at an alarming rate. One hardly reestablishes trust by being consistently and repeatedly in error, in an endless number of stories spread over a substantial period of time. One particular dilemma is especially vexing: what are "responsible" and "serious" news organizations to say when Trump implements policies they abhor, but Trump insists that he relies on precedents established by the Obama administration to justify those policies? What are they to say when Trump's appeal to Obama administration precedents is obviously true? My, my, vexing indeed.
Most of the press and media however seem to be total rookies, because they consistently get everything about Trump wrong. Trump will never recover from this controversy, Trump will never recover from that controversy, Trump will never win the primaries, Trump will never be the GOP nominee, Trump will never flip any Blue states, Trump will never beat Clinton, Trump has a less than 10% chance of winning the election, Trump's Taiwan call will destroy relations with China and so on and so on.
The same pundits whose predictions have been repeatedly wrong about Trump for over a year, aren't exactly the most reliable source in terms of predicting what Trump will do and what will happen once he's done it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Dude you are a completely clueless idiot. Yes there are millions of Trump supporters, unfortunately for Trump supporters there were 3 million more Clinton supporters. Trump won the Electoral College and nothing else. No It wasn't just because of California and not there was no voter fraud EXCEPT for the widely reported and documented cases where Trump supporters deliberately and with malice of thought voted multiple times
Dude, you live in a bubble. There are millions of Trump supporters out here. How do you think he won the nomination?
I'm not sure what your statement has to do with anything I wrote. I didn't suggest that there aren't millions of Trump voters in any way at all. Very 'bubbly' of you to read one thing and your bubble turned it into something else entirely...
The Tea Party faction of the Republican party has been growing in numbers and power since Rick's famous rant in 2009. The 2010 midterm primaries were a warning shot. There were a few more wins in 2012, but we didn't yet have the strength to get a good candidate for the presidency. The 2014 bloodbath showed that we were on track to take over in 2016, and we did. We didn't win everywhere, but we finally got a candidate who was willing to fight for us, and fight he did. And he won.
Lol, I guess you're forgetting (quite conveniently) that the Tea party did not support Trump during the primaries (they didn't think he was a real conservative - which he's not.)
BTW, there are two types of 'tea party' members. Those who were involved early and had actual integrity and grit, and those who came later when it was subverted by the Koch Brothers into what it is today (a loud mouthed group of populists who think they're libertarian but only when it works for them...)
You are mourning the end of the uniparty. The Republican party no longer has the same goals as the Democrat party. Your side didn't win. It didn't help that your team started doing the touchdown dance on the 30 yard line, but the real reason is that we got off the sidelines and started pushing back.
Again, you appear to be creating another straw-man argument. I didn't mourn the GOP's direction (even though candidates I could support didn't win the primaries - that's democracy.) Somehow you've also managed to screw up the obvious fact that I wanted a GOP candidate to vote for (try reading again.) I'm not a democrat, but I am an American and I care what happens to my country - not just myself.
Loading...
Killed the Facebook in EU. One cannot post a single thing without army of censors breathing at one's back. FB is dead, DEAD IN THE WATER! Now, after being neutered, spayed, castrated, sterilised, emasculated and eunuchised, with disguise I closed my account, wished all the FB censors Happy Heil Merkel & go f. s. As an information-sharing service, EU's version of FB is effectively infantile-service good for cat videos and dog pictures.
A jewgger
Fuck that piece of shit
See subject: Calling it a "new form"? Messageboards & MySpace existed before it for Pete's sake!
Originality is not a strong suit or claim he ought to be making imo... maybe a 'better' one is more correct but then, I've been on sites AGES ago that did what fakebook allows for the most part!
E.G. - MySpace & forum bbs' (that allow you to do MORE than you can on /., ala posting photos & having storage on the site's servers for data like pics, live chat or IRC type tools etc.) existed LONG before 'fakebook' ever did - from what I keep seeing about it, I am GLAD I never got into it (or MySpace etc. either) - tech forums = good enough for me (/.'s pretty ok except for trolls screwing with myself & others)
APK
P.S.=> However - I am with him on the 'crazy idea' that Democrats tried to falsely spread of 'fake news' on it - they did MORE of THAT via mainstream media than any party I'd EVER seen (former traditional democrat here too)... apk
...because 'douche-bag' is not a type of media.
Just like the 'douche-bag' that claims to run the place is not a type of leader and not a type of a programmer.
I don't think he understands the nature of his own website business. If the man supplied oil to 99% of the world he would say he is not an oil company.
You said that no one in your neighborhood voted for Trump, but instead voted against Hillary. That is literally a bubble. Geographically speaking, that is the very definition of a bubble. The area around you is an outlier, it does not represent the normal. Normal is that at least 1/3 of Republican voters were enthusiastic Trump supporters, and the rest voted for him because the alternative was Hillary.
As an outsider, your insight into the Tea Party movement means less than nothing. I'll give you a big hint, the movement is not about the politicians that adopted the label to get votes, nor is it about the guys that had honest good intentions and got corrupted as soon as they got to DC. The movement is about the people and the ideas, and both are gaining right now, in a very big way.
You were sad that the 12 or so Republican primary candidates that would have completed and delivered Obama's policies didn't win. Those are the guys you said you wanted to vote for. Those guys were the Republican wing of the uniparty. And they lost, probably for good.
See that "Preview" button?
Don't you bodyshame AC's whore of a mother.
Don't you slutshame AC's big, beautiful, Hutt of a mother.