The problem is giving subsidies to private companies without anything that tracks where that money goes. Building Internet infrastructure is a worthwhile investment. Giving Verizon billions of dollars and saying, "I hope you build something good with this," is not such a great idea.
I agree that lots of people probably don't know about it, but you only need one on a jury. Or really, you don't need a single person on the jury to actually know anything about the "jury nullification" per se. Without having ever heard the words "jury nullification" or having the idea explained that some people believe juries should be allowed to return a verdict contrary to the law, it's still possible that a jury could arrive at that idea own their own.
Twelve people sitting in a room could simply say, "I know the judge said we're supposed to return a 'guilty' verdict if I think he did [whatever], and I think he did [whatever]. But screw the law, I don't think the guy did anything wrong. I'm not going to send him to prison or impose fines for something that I don't think is wrong. Let's say he's not guilty." No formal knowledge of 'jury nullification' is required for that.
Well, I don't think it's that FTL is impossible or special relativity is wrong-- the third option is that time travel is possible. Of course, if time travel were possible, that would raise a lot of potential problems and paradoxes, and we can't say how those paradoxes would resolve themselves. I'm not saying that the third possibility is a likely one, but it's there.
You're right, though, to point this out as a problem. Lots of people don't realize that, according to our current understanding of space-time, faster-than-light travel and time travel are essentially the same thing. Also, being able to send information faster than light would be the same thing as being able to send a message backwards in time.
Even if you can employ the benefits of time dilation, that might make the trip shorter for the travelers-- but what about when they get where they're going, and what about when they come back?
You start colonizing some distant world, and then you set out to get there. By the time you get there, the colony has reached the height of civilization and destroyed itself thousands of years ago. By the time you get back to Earth, that's gone too.
You're right, there is no need to put lipstick on the pig.
Well the saying isn't supposed to imply that there's no need to put lipstick on the pig, but it's just that the lipstick doesn't suddenly make the pig into a woman. But if you're into those kind of things, and you're going to fool around with the pig, then I suppose you may as well dress it up and put lipstick on it.
I believe it's possible for a judge, under certain circumstances, set aside a jury's verdict if the defendant is found guilty. I think the judge has to believe that, from a legal standpoint, the case was not made, and the verdict was reached due to some kind of prejudice. I don't know the specifics, though, or what other requirements must be met.
Anyway, regardless of whether the jury is instructed that they can use jury nullification, or even if they're instructed that they can't use it, a jury may possibly refuse to convict anyway. In that case, I don't believe there's anything the judge or prosecutor or anyone else can do.
Jury nullification is definitely controversial-- I'm with you there. But you'll have to find me something more direct in the way of an explanation of Sparf v. US. I'm looking for the specific language where jury notification is forbidden to so that I can see exactly what it says.
I could understand if defense attorneys or judges are barred from instructing the jury that they're allowed to use jury nullification, but I can't see how the practice can be stopped. If the jury finds that a defendant is not guilty, is there any circumstance under which a judge can set that judgement aside and order that the defendant be found guilty? Or declare a mistrial or something? I can't imagine. It seems like it would inevitably lead to horrible abuses in power.
But anyway I was just saying that the proposed "fair use" defense may actually be aimed at jury nullification. He doesn't have to argue in favor of jury nullification in court in order to do that. He could argue "fair use", knowing that it isn't a strong legal case, but also hoping that a jury will vote "not guilty" in spite of the law.
2. There are many different factual scenarios within the penumbra of "file sharing".
I guess so, but wouldn't there be a scenario about which you could say, "if this is fair use, then most file sharing is fair use."? Something like: setting up your computer to be the server specifically with the intent of allowing others to download.
I don't really know. I tried reading something from the guy's weblog, and I couldn't understand what he was talking about. Plus, I don't think I can trust someone who looks like SenatorPalpatine.
The only sense I can make out of it is, might he be trying for jury nullification? It seems like there is an argument to be made, that copyright law wasn't intended to address private non-commercial sharing. However, (IANAL) it doesn't seem like current fair use law makes a blanket exception for sharing non-commercial copies. I've always thought of the argument more as a reason to think about rewriting the laws to try to address copyright concerns in a sensible way, given the realities of the Internet age.
I could see a jury being persuaded to ignore the law, though. Given a random set of 12 people, how many of them do you think have engaged in file sharing themselves?
This is brilliant. There's been a lot of scifi stories that hypothesized implants that run off of neural impulses; this isn't limited by the extremely small amounts of electricity that the nervous system generates.
Well yes, when you think about it, it makes all the sense in the world. Our blood is in many ways a vehicle for carrying chemical fuel to "power" our bodies. So if you're going to implant something that needs to draw power, of course you'd want to see if you could draw power from that same source. So apparently yeast may be a decent mechanism for doing do.
Of course, it does make me wonder exactly how much power can be drawn, and whether it would reach some point where implanted devices would be competing with your own body for nutrients. In a way, it's like they're trying to build an artificial symbiotic parasite.
What's funny is that my first reaction as I read the article was, "doesn't yeast produce wastes that are foreign and toxic to the human body?" And wouldn't you know it, the next section was entitled, "Waste problem". Guess they're reading my mind.:-P
What I want to know: is there any chance that they could get the yeast to continually produce alcohol from the glucose in your blood? I want an implant that makes it so keeping me drunk will be as simple as eating a donut.
I can understand that to some degree, because in reality it is a balancing act, and some people may prefer a different balance. But if I have to go searching through my junk mail all the time to pick out the false positives, then I'm not sure how much better off I am than just sorting through a spam-filled inbox.
The main benefit to avoiding false negatives that I can think of is the notification of new email. I have a smart phone that buzzes every time an email goes into my inbox. If I weren't filtering spam, it would buzz constantly. So in that sense, it's better to deal with false negatives, since I can always sort through my junk when I get back to my computer. But otherwise, I don't really see much benefit.
Also, let's say that your ISP does catch all the spam. What valid emails aren't you getting because of false positives? What valid emails are you sending that the recipients aren't getting because of false positives?
Not getting spam is only half the battle. Getting all valid email is the other half. Winning the war decisively is an additional problem on top of that.
I think it's important to note also that many of the people involved in ratifying the constitution did not believe that the Bill of Rights granted rights to citizens. They did not believe that people wouldn't have the right to free speech if the first amendment wasn't written, but rather that freedom of speech was an inalienable human right that the government had no right to infringe upon. At least, that seems to have been a belief that wasn't uncommon among our "founding fathers".
So in a certain way of speaking, there is no portion of the Constitution that was written with the intent of granting rights. The Bill of Rights was written with the intent of listing certain major rights that the government should be expressly and explicitly forbidden from violating. The Constitution itself was written with the intent of explicitly listing the powers that the people were granting to the government.
Whether you chose to shout your comments from the gallery or in front of a microphone, the right to express one's opinion -on any subject- should not be subject to persecution by any person. That is why it is the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
No, the first amendment does *not* prohibit your expressions from having negative consequences for you. It simply says that the government cannot make laws which inhibit your right to speak or associate with whoever you choose.
Private persons can absolutely retaliate against you for what you say, so long as their retaliation is itself legal.
In fairness, I don't think the issue is the ratio of news to analysis. The big question is, when the newspapers go under, will the total volume and quality of news drop? And if we assume the answer is "yes" the next question is "By how much?"
You have to remember that one of the advantages websites have over newspapers is that space is not limited. Adding analysis doesn't need to take away from the news in any way. It's important to keep a separation between news and opinion/analysis, and to keep each of them easy to identify and find.
Now obviously a handful of reporters at one website doesn't make up for all the newspapers around the country, but these online news outlets are still relatively new. I'm suggesting that if there is a business model for running websites that hire real journalist to do real reporting, then losing newspapers might not be such a horrible thing. If, however, there is no way for journalists to get paid to do thorough jobs of reporting and editing, and newspapers and magazines still go under, then our society may have some real problems figuring out what's going on within itself, let alone around the world.
So you're saying that in "journalism" the writers get pampered and looked after while the Huffington Post puts them to work?
Or wait, I'm forgetting that sometimes kids get mistreated and abused in day care... So traditional newspapers would be better off if one of their parents were looking after them, but the Huffington Post is run by people with small hands?
...the backing of a major media conglomerate with deep pockets to go to bat for you when you are sued in indispensible. You may want to say something publicly against corporate America but the fear of repercussions is usually what limits individuals from doing so.
What makes you think being the backing of a major media conglomerate makes you more safe when saying something publicly against corporate America? I mean, when you consider the overlap of major media conglomerates and corporate America, it seems like backing real whistleblowers could just as easily be against the media conglomerate's interests.
I think I'd rather have a whole ton of smaller independent operations than a couple humungous umbrella companies that run the whole show.
HuffPo is an extreme left-wing wannabe news outlet. By investigate, what they really mean is "smear machine."
I think that whether you like the Huffington Post is beside the point: they're going to pay investigative reporters. For a little while now, lots of people have been concerned about the fact that newspapers are dying off and have asked the question, "How will get get our news now?"
The reason lots of people have said that sites like the Huffington Post can't be considered "replacements" for newspapers is that they don't have investigative reporters that actually find and generate news stories. What they do is more like aggregate news and op-ed pieces, so if newspapers die, they'll have nothing to aggregate. And that's a valid complaint.
However, if these sites start getting big enough to employ their own reporters and they start actually doing their own investigations, then the death of newspapers becomes less of a scary prospect. Right now, the Huffington Post is just one example of people trying to find a business model that allows for real journalism without the need of an actual printed newspaper. If some successful business models are found, then we might just be ok.
But you're pointing out that the Huffington Post has a slant, and that's a fair thing to note. However, print newspapers also each have their own slant, so it's not really anything new.
I'm not sure about the latest iPhones, but with the first revision Apple got a cut of the money AT&T collected from the contract, as well as the cost of the device.
I believe that changed when AT&T started subsidizing the cost of the iPhone.
And ultimately I doubt Apple really wants to be a the mercy of a particular 3rd party vendor in order to provide service. They'd be much better off if there were ubiquitous high-speed wireless dumb pipes for which Apple could sell iPod Shuffles and forget about iPhones entirely. It's a better business for them to be in, and if they really wanted to lock you into a particular service, Apple could provide their own VoIP client and lock out other vendors (if that was really what they wanted to do). Then they could make all the money they're currently making out of the AT&T deal, plus the AT&T side of the profit.
You might be thinking a data-only plan with a Skype client would save you money, but you'd be wrong: Apple doesn't want you to do that. AT&T doesn't either.
I'm not sure Apple has much reason to keep you from doing that except for maintaining their relationship with AT&T, but in general you're right. But besides them not wanting you to do it, it's not clear to me that any mobile carrier's network is good enough to support it even if they were willing to allow it. Even current 3G networks pretty well stink.
I assume that, being Google, ads will accompany the download service. Also, since the labels agreed to it, I would assume that they get a cut of the ad revenue.
It may be an issue of the record labels simply agreeing to take something over nothing, however small that "something" may be.
This just proves what i'd known all along: command lines are more efficient, and although the learning curve might be a bit steeper, they just kick ass for things you have to do repeatedly.
I would say it differently: command lines are better or more efficient for some things. Trying to do those things with a mouse may make it easier for people who don't know how to do the same thing in a command line, but someone using a command line can sometimes do the same thing more quickly and easily. On the other hand, some things are better handled by those clickety-clickety ways that are used by people who favor a GUI.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing, but your post seems to focus on how it's a bit silly to try to get rid of the CLI, but without recognition that it's also silly to try to get rid of the GUI.
I'm not saying they're lying to me, I'm saying that at that stage of development, kids say what they think they're supposed to say and they mimic adults. It's innocent behavior. They're not idiots and they're not evil. That's just how kids at that age operate.
I even remember having an imaginary friend at that age, but the thing was, it's not like I was hallucinating and believing that this fake person existed. It was just that my parents would tell me about people that they'd met and talked to, and the things they'd done. I'd tell them about the people I'd talked to and the things I'd done. It didn't matter to me that I hadn't met all of those people or done all of those things, I was just engaging in the chit-chat that I thought was expected of me.
So yeah, your kids might seem really smart because they're telling you all the things that you think a child that age should know. And the reason they're doing that is because they know that's what you want to hear. If you think that other children are stupid for not telling you what you want to hear, then you're the one failing to understand how children develop socially.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is giving subsidies to private companies without anything that tracks where that money goes. Building Internet infrastructure is a worthwhile investment. Giving Verizon billions of dollars and saying, "I hope you build something good with this," is not such a great idea.
I agree that lots of people probably don't know about it, but you only need one on a jury. Or really, you don't need a single person on the jury to actually know anything about the "jury nullification" per se. Without having ever heard the words "jury nullification" or having the idea explained that some people believe juries should be allowed to return a verdict contrary to the law, it's still possible that a jury could arrive at that idea own their own.
Twelve people sitting in a room could simply say, "I know the judge said we're supposed to return a 'guilty' verdict if I think he did [whatever], and I think he did [whatever]. But screw the law, I don't think the guy did anything wrong. I'm not going to send him to prison or impose fines for something that I don't think is wrong. Let's say he's not guilty." No formal knowledge of 'jury nullification' is required for that.
Well, I don't think it's that FTL is impossible or special relativity is wrong-- the third option is that time travel is possible. Of course, if time travel were possible, that would raise a lot of potential problems and paradoxes, and we can't say how those paradoxes would resolve themselves. I'm not saying that the third possibility is a likely one, but it's there.
You're right, though, to point this out as a problem. Lots of people don't realize that, according to our current understanding of space-time, faster-than-light travel and time travel are essentially the same thing. Also, being able to send information faster than light would be the same thing as being able to send a message backwards in time.
You start colonizing some distant world, and then you set out to get there. By the time you get there, the colony has reached the height of civilization and destroyed itself thousands of years ago. By the time you get back to Earth, that's gone too.
You're right, there is no need to put lipstick on the pig.
Well the saying isn't supposed to imply that there's no need to put lipstick on the pig, but it's just that the lipstick doesn't suddenly make the pig into a woman. But if you're into those kind of things, and you're going to fool around with the pig, then I suppose you may as well dress it up and put lipstick on it.
I mean, why not?
Wait... how did we get to talking about this?
I believe it's possible for a judge, under certain circumstances, set aside a jury's verdict if the defendant is found guilty. I think the judge has to believe that, from a legal standpoint, the case was not made, and the verdict was reached due to some kind of prejudice. I don't know the specifics, though, or what other requirements must be met.
Anyway, regardless of whether the jury is instructed that they can use jury nullification, or even if they're instructed that they can't use it, a jury may possibly refuse to convict anyway. In that case, I don't believe there's anything the judge or prosecutor or anyone else can do.
Jury nullification is definitely controversial-- I'm with you there. But you'll have to find me something more direct in the way of an explanation of Sparf v. US. I'm looking for the specific language where jury notification is forbidden to so that I can see exactly what it says.
I could understand if defense attorneys or judges are barred from instructing the jury that they're allowed to use jury nullification, but I can't see how the practice can be stopped. If the jury finds that a defendant is not guilty, is there any circumstance under which a judge can set that judgement aside and order that the defendant be found guilty? Or declare a mistrial or something? I can't imagine. It seems like it would inevitably lead to horrible abuses in power.
But anyway I was just saying that the proposed "fair use" defense may actually be aimed at jury nullification. He doesn't have to argue in favor of jury nullification in court in order to do that. He could argue "fair use", knowing that it isn't a strong legal case, but also hoping that a jury will vote "not guilty" in spite of the law.
2. There are many different factual scenarios within the penumbra of "file sharing".
I guess so, but wouldn't there be a scenario about which you could say, "if this is fair use, then most file sharing is fair use."? Something like: setting up your computer to be the server specifically with the intent of allowing others to download.
I don't really know. I tried reading something from the guy's weblog, and I couldn't understand what he was talking about. Plus, I don't think I can trust someone who looks like Senator Palpatine.
The only sense I can make out of it is, might he be trying for jury nullification? It seems like there is an argument to be made, that copyright law wasn't intended to address private non-commercial sharing. However, (IANAL) it doesn't seem like current fair use law makes a blanket exception for sharing non-commercial copies. I've always thought of the argument more as a reason to think about rewriting the laws to try to address copyright concerns in a sensible way, given the realities of the Internet age.
I could see a jury being persuaded to ignore the law, though. Given a random set of 12 people, how many of them do you think have engaged in file sharing themselves?
This is brilliant. There's been a lot of scifi stories that hypothesized implants that run off of neural impulses; this isn't limited by the extremely small amounts of electricity that the nervous system generates.
Well yes, when you think about it, it makes all the sense in the world. Our blood is in many ways a vehicle for carrying chemical fuel to "power" our bodies. So if you're going to implant something that needs to draw power, of course you'd want to see if you could draw power from that same source. So apparently yeast may be a decent mechanism for doing do.
Of course, it does make me wonder exactly how much power can be drawn, and whether it would reach some point where implanted devices would be competing with your own body for nutrients. In a way, it's like they're trying to build an artificial symbiotic parasite.
What's funny is that my first reaction as I read the article was, "doesn't yeast produce wastes that are foreign and toxic to the human body?" And wouldn't you know it, the next section was entitled, "Waste problem". Guess they're reading my mind. :-P
What I want to know: is there any chance that they could get the yeast to continually produce alcohol from the glucose in your blood? I want an implant that makes it so keeping me drunk will be as simple as eating a donut.
I can understand that to some degree, because in reality it is a balancing act, and some people may prefer a different balance. But if I have to go searching through my junk mail all the time to pick out the false positives, then I'm not sure how much better off I am than just sorting through a spam-filled inbox.
The main benefit to avoiding false negatives that I can think of is the notification of new email. I have a smart phone that buzzes every time an email goes into my inbox. If I weren't filtering spam, it would buzz constantly. So in that sense, it's better to deal with false negatives, since I can always sort through my junk when I get back to my computer. But otherwise, I don't really see much benefit.
Also, let's say that your ISP does catch all the spam. What valid emails aren't you getting because of false positives? What valid emails are you sending that the recipients aren't getting because of false positives?
Not getting spam is only half the battle. Getting all valid email is the other half. Winning the war decisively is an additional problem on top of that.
Good post.
I think it's important to note also that many of the people involved in ratifying the constitution did not believe that the Bill of Rights granted rights to citizens. They did not believe that people wouldn't have the right to free speech if the first amendment wasn't written, but rather that freedom of speech was an inalienable human right that the government had no right to infringe upon. At least, that seems to have been a belief that wasn't uncommon among our "founding fathers".
So in a certain way of speaking, there is no portion of the Constitution that was written with the intent of granting rights. The Bill of Rights was written with the intent of listing certain major rights that the government should be expressly and explicitly forbidden from violating. The Constitution itself was written with the intent of explicitly listing the powers that the people were granting to the government.
Whether you chose to shout your comments from the gallery or in front of a microphone, the right to express one's opinion -on any subject- should not be subject to persecution by any person. That is why it is the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
No, the first amendment does *not* prohibit your expressions from having negative consequences for you. It simply says that the government cannot make laws which inhibit your right to speak or associate with whoever you choose.
Private persons can absolutely retaliate against you for what you say, so long as their retaliation is itself legal.
So does you proclamation apply to whisle blowers, people in witness protection, confidential documents, your SSN, trade secrets, etc.
If people had the right to prevent others from discovering their secrets, then wouldn't people have the right to prevent whistle blowers?
In fairness, I don't think the issue is the ratio of news to analysis. The big question is, when the newspapers go under, will the total volume and quality of news drop? And if we assume the answer is "yes" the next question is "By how much?"
You have to remember that one of the advantages websites have over newspapers is that space is not limited. Adding analysis doesn't need to take away from the news in any way. It's important to keep a separation between news and opinion/analysis, and to keep each of them easy to identify and find.
Now obviously a handful of reporters at one website doesn't make up for all the newspapers around the country, but these online news outlets are still relatively new. I'm suggesting that if there is a business model for running websites that hire real journalist to do real reporting, then losing newspapers might not be such a horrible thing. If, however, there is no way for journalists to get paid to do thorough jobs of reporting and editing, and newspapers and magazines still go under, then our society may have some real problems figuring out what's going on within itself, let alone around the world.
So you're saying that in "journalism" the writers get pampered and looked after while the Huffington Post puts them to work?
Or wait, I'm forgetting that sometimes kids get mistreated and abused in day care... So traditional newspapers would be better off if one of their parents were looking after them, but the Huffington Post is run by people with small hands?
Sorry, I'm bad with metaphors.
...the backing of a major media conglomerate with deep pockets to go to bat for you when you are sued in indispensible. You may want to say something publicly against corporate America but the fear of repercussions is usually what limits individuals from doing so.
What makes you think being the backing of a major media conglomerate makes you more safe when saying something publicly against corporate America? I mean, when you consider the overlap of major media conglomerates and corporate America, it seems like backing real whistleblowers could just as easily be against the media conglomerate's interests.
I think I'd rather have a whole ton of smaller independent operations than a couple humungous umbrella companies that run the whole show.
HuffPo is an extreme left-wing wannabe news outlet. By investigate, what they really mean is "smear machine."
I think that whether you like the Huffington Post is beside the point: they're going to pay investigative reporters. For a little while now, lots of people have been concerned about the fact that newspapers are dying off and have asked the question, "How will get get our news now?"
The reason lots of people have said that sites like the Huffington Post can't be considered "replacements" for newspapers is that they don't have investigative reporters that actually find and generate news stories. What they do is more like aggregate news and op-ed pieces, so if newspapers die, they'll have nothing to aggregate. And that's a valid complaint.
However, if these sites start getting big enough to employ their own reporters and they start actually doing their own investigations, then the death of newspapers becomes less of a scary prospect. Right now, the Huffington Post is just one example of people trying to find a business model that allows for real journalism without the need of an actual printed newspaper. If some successful business models are found, then we might just be ok.
But you're pointing out that the Huffington Post has a slant, and that's a fair thing to note. However, print newspapers also each have their own slant, so it's not really anything new.
I'm not sure about the latest iPhones, but with the first revision Apple got a cut of the money AT&T collected from the contract, as well as the cost of the device.
I believe that changed when AT&T started subsidizing the cost of the iPhone.
And ultimately I doubt Apple really wants to be a the mercy of a particular 3rd party vendor in order to provide service. They'd be much better off if there were ubiquitous high-speed wireless dumb pipes for which Apple could sell iPod Shuffles and forget about iPhones entirely. It's a better business for them to be in, and if they really wanted to lock you into a particular service, Apple could provide their own VoIP client and lock out other vendors (if that was really what they wanted to do). Then they could make all the money they're currently making out of the AT&T deal, plus the AT&T side of the profit.
You might be thinking a data-only plan with a Skype client would save you money, but you'd be wrong: Apple doesn't want you to do that. AT&T doesn't either.
I'm not sure Apple has much reason to keep you from doing that except for maintaining their relationship with AT&T, but in general you're right. But besides them not wanting you to do it, it's not clear to me that any mobile carrier's network is good enough to support it even if they were willing to allow it. Even current 3G networks pretty well stink.
I assume that, being Google, ads will accompany the download service. Also, since the labels agreed to it, I would assume that they get a cut of the ad revenue.
It may be an issue of the record labels simply agreeing to take something over nothing, however small that "something" may be.
This just proves what i'd known all along: command lines are more efficient, and although the learning curve might be a bit steeper, they just kick ass for things you have to do repeatedly.
I would say it differently: command lines are better or more efficient for some things. Trying to do those things with a mouse may make it easier for people who don't know how to do the same thing in a command line, but someone using a command line can sometimes do the same thing more quickly and easily. On the other hand, some things are better handled by those clickety-clickety ways that are used by people who favor a GUI.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing, but your post seems to focus on how it's a bit silly to try to get rid of the CLI, but without recognition that it's also silly to try to get rid of the GUI.
Step 1: call people stupid
Step 2: deny any scientific studies or expert statements
Step 3: claim to be correct
Step 4: repeat
That's very clever of you. I'm at a loss to respond further. Have fun misunderstanding lots of things and "winning" arguments about them.
I'm not saying they're lying to me, I'm saying that at that stage of development, kids say what they think they're supposed to say and they mimic adults. It's innocent behavior. They're not idiots and they're not evil. That's just how kids at that age operate.
I even remember having an imaginary friend at that age, but the thing was, it's not like I was hallucinating and believing that this fake person existed. It was just that my parents would tell me about people that they'd met and talked to, and the things they'd done. I'd tell them about the people I'd talked to and the things I'd done. It didn't matter to me that I hadn't met all of those people or done all of those things, I was just engaging in the chit-chat that I thought was expected of me.
So yeah, your kids might seem really smart because they're telling you all the things that you think a child that age should know. And the reason they're doing that is because they know that's what you want to hear. If you think that other children are stupid for not telling you what you want to hear, then you're the one failing to understand how children develop socially.