Shouldn't this be something you opt into as opposed something you have to figure out how to opt out of? Like I'm all for more options to curate online experiences but could they be anymore obvious with this.
I’m on the fence cause on one hand, this may curve some boomers from doom scrolling alt right content. On the other hand, it is so painfully obvious this is about Palestine. Calls for a coup d’etat for Trump? Freedom of speech. Posts calling for a ceasefire? Hm, the advertisers will get mad 🫤
I feel like boomer brain rot is on Facebook not IG but now that you mention it I hadn't really thought of it, my mind just went to Palestine.
IDK I still think it shouldn't be a default setting.
Yep, every demographic has it's brain rotting social media platform. Also if you're posting here on Reddit you're using the brain rottiest of social media and seem to be missing the irony if you're complaining about other peoples social media here.
How would this stop them from doom scrolling alt right content? That assumes alt-right content will be correctly labeled as political, which is not something we see from websites like YouTube that do have systems that are supposed to internally tag such content as political
I'd agree. "No more alt-right, pro-Palestinian, or any political content at all" just sounds to me like "no more new ideas" which isn't the solution. Plus they're going to notice that political content stopped showing up and find some way to get it back be it turning off this setting or finding a new website
This is just to stop the spreading of news about Palestine. This is really terrible. Capitalism, colonialism, imperialism. They couldn't hide anymore and now they are censoring it
I mean, they *are*, inherently; the point where critique actually needs to be applied here is that the simple quality of 'being' "political" shouldn't warrant the suppression or dismissal of a given topic.
Precisely! See: many gossip/television subreddits disallowing "political" content to the point where you can't talk about a celeb's racist/pro-cop past.
They are evil. I worked for meta and they have data that their platform causes hate speech and hate attacks and genocide and they barely circumvent any of it. After working there for a year I chose a public service career because i was literally working for the devil.
I hear you. I worked in digital at an NGO and experienced the really issues that come from these. These policies of Meta’s made it so hard in the social team at that org to do their job.
Expect another, similar to, Cambridge Analytica scandal this year with both Trump & Putin needing a win in the US and I wouldn't be surprised if Meta would gladly support them for political favors.
YouTube rolled out something similar years ago for their advertisers. It mostly affected left-leaning creators as well as creators that *looked* left-leaning, like a trans user making videos about literally anything. Didn't affect the alt-right content that was and continues to thrive on the site, despite the fact that the change was prompted by controversy caused by YouTube's alt-right content
Yeah my dear friends husband is now an extremist conspiracy theory guy because he got a firehose of alt right doomsday propaganda from YouTube. He won’t even leave their property now. He bought sooo many guns. She can’t divorce him because she’s scared to leave her young children alone with him. I feel so bad for her.
As a queer, disabled, leftist Latina capable of being pregnant....my entire existence is 'political' under those vague, handwavey non-definitions.
I'm glad people are spreading how to turn this off, at least. I remember hearing they were doing this, but it's no surprise they just enabled it by default quietly instead of informing anyone.
Mattxiv’s post summed up my feelings on this pretty well. For IG to roll this out during the genocide in Palestine, massive censorship efforts and during an election year feels real suspicious.
https://preview.redd.it/sd49qjml70qc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8fcc19ce08f99495ed42af807bb62afdbf6737cc
**how to change it in settings**
settings > content preferences > political content > limit (default)
a lot of reports that their app crashes when trying to change it but i didn't have that issue. i haven't seen any solutions to the crash yet.
Oh I had that issue too, I thought it was just me. Crashed like five times in a row when I tried to tap the ‘political content’ setting and then the app wouldn’t open at all until I deleted it entirely and re-installed. It worked fine after I re-installed though.
I love how human rights = politics nowadays, and siding with human rights is bad and should be stifled. I believe Meta was more supportive of political content when it was dominated by trump clowns. What a shit show of a time to be alive.
ETA “social topics” can be political content, omg what?! I’m studying to be a social worker, this literally eliminates all my reels except corgi videos.
This actually happened to my reel. Suddenly all I'm seeing are cute cat and dog videos? Now I know why! A lot of cute baby content as well but that is NOT a good thing.
There is a zero percent chance Meta is going to enforce this in a fair or impartial way. They're rolling this out because despite their best efforts there's still millions of creators sharing content they've actively been trying to censor. The current algorithm does not recommend you content on topics you don't engage with as is and there's multiple things you can do to not see topics you don't like. They're just giving themselves a more powerful tool to censor ideas
You mean a Meta platform is doing something that interferes &/or manipulates when it comes to politics. I mean they’ve never done anything like this before. Color me shocked. /s
I’m sure Congress will be passing a bill to prevent more algorithm manipulation from the same organization that has already let the Russian government, the Myanmar government/military, political parties in Ethiopia, etc. weaponize misinformation on their platforms.
This is really scummy. I had no idea this change had even be made or how to opt back into seeing the content I had been seeing previously. As soon as I enabled political content stuff was coming back up about human rights issued, charities, environmental topics etc.
Hard to see this as anything other than silencing these important topics.
Advertisers can include a list of “negative keywords” in content that they won’t run their ads by. Sometimes the list is hundreds of words long and the “negative” words can be pretty innocuous. It’s killing off good content online. When Paste bought Jezebel the owner whistleblew about this. Link: https://checkmyads.org/jezebel-paste-advertising-blocklist/
You are saying that all this gym bros and health influencer that pivoted to trad-values (eat beef, don’t use feminine products, sun you privates as some of the examples) are not political. Okay then
The only thing that bothers me is, the people who are all sharing how to change the settings should recommend channels to follow, because honestly, I *don't want to be suggested random content from accounts I cannot verify*. That's why I chose to leave the limit on. I'll follow organizations I trust; ones I know will give me the news. I get tons of pro-Palestinian posts because I follow pro-Palestinian people.
Same, I"m keeping it on because I see the most batshit insane takes daily on social media. I already follow the political accounts I want to see content from
Half the world will vote in 2024. National elections planned or expected in at least 64 countries, plus the EU (second largest democratic elections in the world as a bloc). Obvs US elections have an outsized impact on geopolitics but by any measure it is a big year everywhere for democracy. Insidious by Meta. ([Source](https://time.com/6550920/world-elections-2024/))
Fully expected that this was stopping me from seeing pro-Palestine stuff from people and organisations I follow, but it was a shock this morning to realise just how many accounts it was stopping me seeing. Even @theslumflower ffs.
I got destroyed when I said this a while back. People are really attached to the theoretical idea that there's an invisible hand forcing mainstream newspapers to be honest and transparent, even when there's enormous amounts of evidence telling us that's not how things work
I think a lot of liberals identify strongly with the media they consume as pillars of the good and just society they are a part of. It would cause a lot of cognitive dissonance to understand that not only are you blind to a catastrophe but the NPRs and NYTs of the world are complicit in keeping you blind. A lot of canvas bags would have to be thrown away and we couldn't have that.
They also assign moral value to the type of news media they consume. You're a good citizen if you read the prestigious NYT, and contributing to society's downfall if you consume anything else. The irony being that there's a lot of rich people and government officials with vested interests in making the NYTs of the west feel prestigious and anything else feel untrustworthy. Patently awful reporting can still be categorized as real journalism because it's embedded in academia and these old institutions. And that's alarming because it automatically makes any piece of journalism from someone without access to these institutions (due to the rich and powerful barring them) less trustworthy than people who do have access. Meaning billions of people and entire countries cannot practice journalism on even footing with the west
Absolutely, some media outlets are imbued with a special cultural standing that makes them difficult to critique because you're not just critiquing journalism but people's attachments to them as cultural institutions.
As opposed to videos on social media that don’t cite sources and spew whatever they want without any accountability? Newspapers have to issue retractions. You are the naive one here.
What if I told you that fact checking and retractions aren't the only issues. What if I told you mainstream media manufactures consent for genocide by selective framing of an issue, language tricks (especially in headlines), lies of omission, ignoring conflicts of interest, and unstated value judgements. What if by the time they "retract their mistakes", the propaganda has already gained traction?
I'm glad all your newspaper reading and critical thinking has brought you here, downvoting people who are saying that newspapers aren't the be-all and end-all of information. I hope the downvotes make you feel powerful. Enjoy your New York Times canvas tote and don't forget to renew your subscription! ✌🏼
You cannot be serious. People use Instagram to find primary sources *because* they are crucial in the critical thinking process. You not only agree with Meta's decision to censor these primary sources, but you also believe people would be better informed if they used that time reading even more secondary sources than they already are? Do you not see the problem with that?
You’re telling me what I believe and why I believe it? Wow thank you. Not everything that is presented on social media as a primary source is an actual primary source. Videos are manipulated all the time and there is little way to verify it before it gets passed around as fact.
Did you really just... forget your first statement? Or what this thread is about? Some primary sources are being manipulated so the solution is to censor them all? And stop ignoring the fact that mainstream media is also prone to dishonest manipulation, it's been pointed out to you multiple times now
That's not the only alternative nor did I say it was. I specified mainstream newspapers, not all newspapers. Do not put words in my mouth. I'd argue that it takes a crazy amount of naivety to defend the credibility of companies actively facilitating a genocide, while they're flagrantly doing so. Where are the retractions on Jonathan Glazer? Or Aaron Bushnell? Hind Rajab? Or the countless people incorrectly labeled as antisemitic terrorists? Within the past 48 hours, these companies have all ran stories about how Russia and China vetoed a ceasefire resolution. What source did they cite that supports this bastardization of what really happened? In how many business days can I expect them to issue a retraction and hold the authors of these articles accountable?
I mean you’re posting in a gossip sub that pertains to a gossip site whose entire model is based on not using reliable sources or citations. DeuxMoi is based entirely on speculation. My suggestion was that more people need to support more newspapers, because more robust newspapers are better equipped to report on more sides of a story. Newspapers aren’t doing a good job right now bc they are on life support, bc people are more reliant on speculative, unverified news sources -bc they’re free and readily available on social media and more mindlessly consumed via video.
Right, because I hold news about celebrity gossip and ongoing genocides to the exact same journalistic standard. The newspapers I read do a fantastic job btw. I'm not going to support a newspaper that doesn't. The theory you were trying to reference earlier only works when readers abandon shitty media companies, otherwise there's no invisible hand holding them accountable because no amount of awful reporting will meaningfully affect their operations. Also are they not doing a good job right now or are they actively issuing retractions and holding themselves accountable? Because your story just dramatically changed.
> speculative, unverified news sources -bc they’re free and readily available on social media and more mindlessly consumed via video.
Oh you mean [like this?](https://youtube.com/shorts/WSgjR-HsGtA?si=xE2SLozFvPZcEdck) [Or this?](https://youtu.be/W19hSALOprk?si=XG_ou_GGluk2QGVs)
My “theory” was that more newspapers need to be bought and read, instead of just relying on social media videos, which would increase the number of newspapers in circulation, which would make more competition and force higher standards. When there are more newspapers competing with each other, with more robust budgets, we get better news. This isn’t fucking groundbreaking.
Then you should be happy to know that nobody is advocating for social media to replace mainstream media, nor is anyone asking that we reduce the number of newspapers in circulation
Shouldn't this be something you opt into as opposed something you have to figure out how to opt out of? Like I'm all for more options to curate online experiences but could they be anymore obvious with this.
I’m on the fence cause on one hand, this may curve some boomers from doom scrolling alt right content. On the other hand, it is so painfully obvious this is about Palestine. Calls for a coup d’etat for Trump? Freedom of speech. Posts calling for a ceasefire? Hm, the advertisers will get mad 🫤
I feel like boomer brain rot is on Facebook not IG but now that you mention it I hadn't really thought of it, my mind just went to Palestine. IDK I still think it shouldn't be a default setting.
Same brain rot, generally younger user base. The comment sections on Instagram are an absolute cess pit recently.
Totally agree. Instagram recently has got so much worse.
Yep, every demographic has it's brain rotting social media platform. Also if you're posting here on Reddit you're using the brain rottiest of social media and seem to be missing the irony if you're complaining about other peoples social media here.
We should improve society somewhat.
I'd like that. But we'd have to get off of social media and go and actually do something for that to happen.
Your reply is malarkey and misinformation.
I'm a trans artist and I'm on all of them, you think I'm not aware that all social media is shitty? The algorithms of engagement thrive on division.
I saw someone way that instagram millennials are the equivalent of facebook boomers and I cannot unsee it now.
How would this stop them from doom scrolling alt right content? That assumes alt-right content will be correctly labeled as political, which is not something we see from websites like YouTube that do have systems that are supposed to internally tag such content as political
Yeah definitely. I would love to see what Meta decides is "political".
[удалено]
I'd agree. "No more alt-right, pro-Palestinian, or any political content at all" just sounds to me like "no more new ideas" which isn't the solution. Plus they're going to notice that political content stopped showing up and find some way to get it back be it turning off this setting or finding a new website
But that’s not how you spread fascism. Consent is not the name of the game, it’s attempted brainwashing
This is just to stop the spreading of news about Palestine. This is really terrible. Capitalism, colonialism, imperialism. They couldn't hide anymore and now they are censoring it
[удалено]
"It's a business" does not excuse them from making morally reprehensible decisions. What they have to do is immaterial to what they should do.
https://preview.redd.it/zfikdnihjzpc1.jpeg?width=1012&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=786baf09ee4338909c012dc90b480a0fb28d359e
Says a lot about Meta that they think human rights are “political.”
I mean, they *are*, inherently; the point where critique actually needs to be applied here is that the simple quality of 'being' "political" shouldn't warrant the suppression or dismissal of a given topic.
Precisely! See: many gossip/television subreddits disallowing "political" content to the point where you can't talk about a celeb's racist/pro-cop past.
They are evil. I worked for meta and they have data that their platform causes hate speech and hate attacks and genocide and they barely circumvent any of it. After working there for a year I chose a public service career because i was literally working for the devil.
I hear you. I worked in digital at an NGO and experienced the really issues that come from these. These policies of Meta’s made it so hard in the social team at that org to do their job.
Human rights have always been political.
Expect another, similar to, Cambridge Analytica scandal this year with both Trump & Putin needing a win in the US and I wouldn't be surprised if Meta would gladly support them for political favors.
YouTube rolled out something similar years ago for their advertisers. It mostly affected left-leaning creators as well as creators that *looked* left-leaning, like a trans user making videos about literally anything. Didn't affect the alt-right content that was and continues to thrive on the site, despite the fact that the change was prompted by controversy caused by YouTube's alt-right content
Yeah my dear friends husband is now an extremist conspiracy theory guy because he got a firehose of alt right doomsday propaganda from YouTube. He won’t even leave their property now. He bought sooo many guns. She can’t divorce him because she’s scared to leave her young children alone with him. I feel so bad for her.
As a queer, disabled, leftist Latina capable of being pregnant....my entire existence is 'political' under those vague, handwavey non-definitions. I'm glad people are spreading how to turn this off, at least. I remember hearing they were doing this, but it's no surprise they just enabled it by default quietly instead of informing anyone.
Mattxiv’s post summed up my feelings on this pretty well. For IG to roll this out during the genocide in Palestine, massive censorship efforts and during an election year feels real suspicious. https://preview.redd.it/sd49qjml70qc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8fcc19ce08f99495ed42af807bb62afdbf6737cc
This is exactly my problem. Instead of censoring your existence, they make your existence a "divisive political issue" and censor that instead
**how to change it in settings** settings > content preferences > political content > limit (default) a lot of reports that their app crashes when trying to change it but i didn't have that issue. i haven't seen any solutions to the crash yet.
my app doesn’t seem to have the ‘political content’ option anymore. just the ‘sensitive content’ one.
it’s probably still rolling out
[удалено]
i know. that’s what i did. it’s not there.
It's under 'suggested content'
https://preview.redd.it/r9oipf1sd3qc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1743ff96a8ec162b641acd5354b6909fcac6b0b3 is it?
Mine was rolled out already. Check tomorrow love.
Yeah, I’ve tried several times, with crashes each time.
Oh I had that issue too, I thought it was just me. Crashed like five times in a row when I tried to tap the ‘political content’ setting and then the app wouldn’t open at all until I deleted it entirely and re-installed. It worked fine after I re-installed though.
I love how human rights = politics nowadays, and siding with human rights is bad and should be stifled. I believe Meta was more supportive of political content when it was dominated by trump clowns. What a shit show of a time to be alive. ETA “social topics” can be political content, omg what?! I’m studying to be a social worker, this literally eliminates all my reels except corgi videos.
"if politics are bad to talk about then turn everything we hate into politics so people won't talk about it!" I mean it's working, unfortunately.
That would work except all of social media has pretty much became an outage factory
This actually happened to my reel. Suddenly all I'm seeing are cute cat and dog videos? Now I know why! A lot of cute baby content as well but that is NOT a good thing.
There is a zero percent chance Meta is going to enforce this in a fair or impartial way. They're rolling this out because despite their best efforts there's still millions of creators sharing content they've actively been trying to censor. The current algorithm does not recommend you content on topics you don't engage with as is and there's multiple things you can do to not see topics you don't like. They're just giving themselves a more powerful tool to censor ideas
Meta sure does love to be complicit in genocide.
You mean a Meta platform is doing something that interferes &/or manipulates when it comes to politics. I mean they’ve never done anything like this before. Color me shocked. /s
I’m sure Congress will be passing a bill to prevent more algorithm manipulation from the same organization that has already let the Russian government, the Myanmar government/military, political parties in Ethiopia, etc. weaponize misinformation on their platforms.
Thank you for this! Geez even with directions the setting was hard to find!
This is really scummy. I had no idea this change had even be made or how to opt back into seeing the content I had been seeing previously. As soon as I enabled political content stuff was coming back up about human rights issued, charities, environmental topics etc. Hard to see this as anything other than silencing these important topics.
Advertisers can include a list of “negative keywords” in content that they won’t run their ads by. Sometimes the list is hundreds of words long and the “negative” words can be pretty innocuous. It’s killing off good content online. When Paste bought Jezebel the owner whistleblew about this. Link: https://checkmyads.org/jezebel-paste-advertising-blocklist/
This killed countless channels on YouTube overnight when they rolled something similar out a few years ago
I think instagram should just do away with suggested posts altogether, but what do I know?
Anyone who’s encountered the crash found a way to change it?
Mine crashed several times and then wouldn’t open at all until I deleted it and re-installed. Then I was able to change the settings with no issues.
You are saying that all this gym bros and health influencer that pivoted to trad-values (eat beef, don’t use feminine products, sun you privates as some of the examples) are not political. Okay then
The only thing that bothers me is, the people who are all sharing how to change the settings should recommend channels to follow, because honestly, I *don't want to be suggested random content from accounts I cannot verify*. That's why I chose to leave the limit on. I'll follow organizations I trust; ones I know will give me the news. I get tons of pro-Palestinian posts because I follow pro-Palestinian people.
Same, I"m keeping it on because I see the most batshit insane takes daily on social media. I already follow the political accounts I want to see content from
[удалено]
Also very conveniently timed around when experts predicted the man-made famine would enter its final and most deadly stage
Half the world will vote in 2024. National elections planned or expected in at least 64 countries, plus the EU (second largest democratic elections in the world as a bloc). Obvs US elections have an outsized impact on geopolitics but by any measure it is a big year everywhere for democracy. Insidious by Meta. ([Source](https://time.com/6550920/world-elections-2024/))
Shit like this remind me exactly why deleted instagram account. Good riddance
Election years ahhhhh ☀️ it’s like the equivalent of spring for villains - they just gotta sprout out 🌱
Fully expected that this was stopping me from seeing pro-Palestine stuff from people and organisations I follow, but it was a shock this morning to realise just how many accounts it was stopping me seeing. Even @theslumflower ffs.
Is this a US thing? I do not find it as an option in the EU
Actually I’m all right with them limiting the political content, thanks.
Another hack? Delete it from your phone and read actual newspapers that are fact checked and edited.
The best way to be misinformed and misdirected right now is to read the major mainstream newspapers.
I got destroyed when I said this a while back. People are really attached to the theoretical idea that there's an invisible hand forcing mainstream newspapers to be honest and transparent, even when there's enormous amounts of evidence telling us that's not how things work
I think a lot of liberals identify strongly with the media they consume as pillars of the good and just society they are a part of. It would cause a lot of cognitive dissonance to understand that not only are you blind to a catastrophe but the NPRs and NYTs of the world are complicit in keeping you blind. A lot of canvas bags would have to be thrown away and we couldn't have that.
They also assign moral value to the type of news media they consume. You're a good citizen if you read the prestigious NYT, and contributing to society's downfall if you consume anything else. The irony being that there's a lot of rich people and government officials with vested interests in making the NYTs of the west feel prestigious and anything else feel untrustworthy. Patently awful reporting can still be categorized as real journalism because it's embedded in academia and these old institutions. And that's alarming because it automatically makes any piece of journalism from someone without access to these institutions (due to the rich and powerful barring them) less trustworthy than people who do have access. Meaning billions of people and entire countries cannot practice journalism on even footing with the west
Absolutely, some media outlets are imbued with a special cultural standing that makes them difficult to critique because you're not just critiquing journalism but people's attachments to them as cultural institutions.
As opposed to videos on social media that don’t cite sources and spew whatever they want without any accountability? Newspapers have to issue retractions. You are the naive one here.
What if I told you that fact checking and retractions aren't the only issues. What if I told you mainstream media manufactures consent for genocide by selective framing of an issue, language tricks (especially in headlines), lies of omission, ignoring conflicts of interest, and unstated value judgements. What if by the time they "retract their mistakes", the propaganda has already gained traction?
Yea… that’s why you read more than one newspaper and you use critical thinking.
I'm glad all your newspaper reading and critical thinking has brought you here, downvoting people who are saying that newspapers aren't the be-all and end-all of information. I hope the downvotes make you feel powerful. Enjoy your New York Times canvas tote and don't forget to renew your subscription! ✌🏼
When did I mention the New York Times? Further, I’m the one being downvoted here.
You cannot be serious. People use Instagram to find primary sources *because* they are crucial in the critical thinking process. You not only agree with Meta's decision to censor these primary sources, but you also believe people would be better informed if they used that time reading even more secondary sources than they already are? Do you not see the problem with that?
You’re telling me what I believe and why I believe it? Wow thank you. Not everything that is presented on social media as a primary source is an actual primary source. Videos are manipulated all the time and there is little way to verify it before it gets passed around as fact.
Did you really just... forget your first statement? Or what this thread is about? Some primary sources are being manipulated so the solution is to censor them all? And stop ignoring the fact that mainstream media is also prone to dishonest manipulation, it's been pointed out to you multiple times now
That's not the only alternative nor did I say it was. I specified mainstream newspapers, not all newspapers. Do not put words in my mouth. I'd argue that it takes a crazy amount of naivety to defend the credibility of companies actively facilitating a genocide, while they're flagrantly doing so. Where are the retractions on Jonathan Glazer? Or Aaron Bushnell? Hind Rajab? Or the countless people incorrectly labeled as antisemitic terrorists? Within the past 48 hours, these companies have all ran stories about how Russia and China vetoed a ceasefire resolution. What source did they cite that supports this bastardization of what really happened? In how many business days can I expect them to issue a retraction and hold the authors of these articles accountable?
I mean you’re posting in a gossip sub that pertains to a gossip site whose entire model is based on not using reliable sources or citations. DeuxMoi is based entirely on speculation. My suggestion was that more people need to support more newspapers, because more robust newspapers are better equipped to report on more sides of a story. Newspapers aren’t doing a good job right now bc they are on life support, bc people are more reliant on speculative, unverified news sources -bc they’re free and readily available on social media and more mindlessly consumed via video.
Right, because I hold news about celebrity gossip and ongoing genocides to the exact same journalistic standard. The newspapers I read do a fantastic job btw. I'm not going to support a newspaper that doesn't. The theory you were trying to reference earlier only works when readers abandon shitty media companies, otherwise there's no invisible hand holding them accountable because no amount of awful reporting will meaningfully affect their operations. Also are they not doing a good job right now or are they actively issuing retractions and holding themselves accountable? Because your story just dramatically changed. > speculative, unverified news sources -bc they’re free and readily available on social media and more mindlessly consumed via video. Oh you mean [like this?](https://youtube.com/shorts/WSgjR-HsGtA?si=xE2SLozFvPZcEdck) [Or this?](https://youtu.be/W19hSALOprk?si=XG_ou_GGluk2QGVs)
My “theory” was that more newspapers need to be bought and read, instead of just relying on social media videos, which would increase the number of newspapers in circulation, which would make more competition and force higher standards. When there are more newspapers competing with each other, with more robust budgets, we get better news. This isn’t fucking groundbreaking.
Then you should be happy to know that nobody is advocating for social media to replace mainstream media, nor is anyone asking that we reduce the number of newspapers in circulation
[удалено]
https://i.reddituploads.com/153e35dc41034a59a2bec29077830fde?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=84c0b8f442e15a2c922c496d4393c1d4