
4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video - geephroh
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/australian-and-nz-isps-blocked-dozens-of-sites-that-host-nz-shooting-video/
======
reaperducer
Seems kinda easy to block niche sites like *chan for hosting the video.
Politicians and regulators can stand up and say they "did something."

When they block Facebook for streaming it live, then I'll be impressed.

~~~
atorralb
This. But we both know it will never happen.

~~~
dymk
Because it shouldn’t. Why let a terrorist organization not only get away with
a shooting, but also get away with taking down any service (which removes
content like this _swiftly_ ) too?

~~~
reaperducer
How do you define "swiftly?" I haven't been able to follow this as closely as
I like, but what I read early on was that it was streaming on Facebook for 17
minutes, and then available as reposts for days afterward. If this is
incorrect, help me out by providing the actual numbers.

~~~
dymk
17 minutes to remove an offending stream, when literally millions of streams
which are legitimate, sounds reasonable.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
> available as reposts for days afterward

~~~
dymk
Gonna need a source on that. It’s impressive how fast they handled it when
probably tens of thousands of people are reposting the content with the
express intent to get around spam filters and avoid manual review.

Should Aus block sms, WhatsApp, and iMessage because the content gets re-
shared there too? Should they block Google because you can find links to the
content there?

------
RobertRoberts
Maybe there is another reason this video is being banned.

I saw this video, I made myself watch it. (judge me)

Then I went back to my tv show. There were scenes of soldiers attacking the
"heroes" in a bowling alley, and it made me horrified and sick. And I realized
Hollywood is glorifying this shit. Hollywood is promoting shootings like this.

An hour before, and this tv show was entertainment to me. Now I feel like a
twisted sicko for enjoying violent entertainment just like what is in the New
Zealand video.

This video changed me, it made me see violence in a new light. It's sick to be
entertained by re-enactments of this in the same way as the original.

~~~
vricius
Even more disturbing is playing counter strike or another FPS after watching
it. You're brain can look at the NZ shooting and a first person Counter Strike
stream and it wouldn't interpret them any differently.

------
identity-haver
Just a thought experiment: so it's after 9/11\. Nobody will show a video of
the planes flying into the towers. The only place you can watch the video is
ISISchan.org, and there are news articles about how many countries banning
ISISchan.org & how problematic ISISchan.org is (don't go to ISISchan.org,
kids!). Now instead of watching a clip on CNN you've got people absorbing all
the extremist propaganda on ISISchan.

~~~
skybrian
I'm very biased against video. I don't watch TV news or reshared political
videos. I'm quite happy that Hacker News doesn't host video; you can link if
needed. So, I have questions:

There are specialized uses, but for most of us, I'm skeptical that it's
important to have video of news events as they happen. If nobody caught 9/11
on video, what would be different?

For many years, no cameras were allowed in courtrooms or in Congress. It seems
like that was fine?

~~~
derekp7
Different people's brains process information in different ways. Others are
better at absorbing information through text, and yet others need hands-on
experience to learn something. There's a reason for the phrase "a picture is
worth a thousand words".

------
post_break
Scary how an ISP can just up and decide to block a website for hosting what
they think is offensive. I guess it's the norm for China and Russia. What's
scarier are the people cheering this as if it's a win.

~~~
fourier_mode
> what they think is offensive.

This is not a a daily instance of "he says", "she says" offensiveness. This is
an act of terror, and these platform served as a propaganda media which ought
to stopped.

~~~
aeternus
Is the manifesto also considered propaganda media? What about analysis of that
manifesto, or discussions about how to prevent attacks like this based on the
contents of the manifesto, especially if they contain excerpts?

Should we ban security companies from using the video for training purposes or
to design better security or anti-terror measures?

Should we ban people from sharing the attacker's name?

Should we ban news agencies from even reporting on attacks like this? Keep in
mind that news-coverage especially has been shown to incite copy-cat attacks.

------
rc_kas
I hate 4chan so much, its a diseased cesspool of morons. However, I hate the
idea blocking them. Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites
to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like.

Edit: Also, facebook pro-actively took down the video as soon as they became
aware.

~~~
krapp
>Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to
censorship of good websites that the government does not like.

Is it really, though, or do people just like the slippery slope fallacy a bit
too much?

Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, _no one and
nothing_ is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's
precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not how societies or governments
tend to work.

~~~
Nadya
The "it's a slippery slope fallacy to assume that censorship of bad things
will lead to censoring good things" would be a more compelling argument if we
didn't have thousands of years of human history proving that it happens again
and again.

"Oh - don't worry, this time in human history it _won 't_ be a slippery
slope!" is not a very compelling argument when we have historical precedent of
the opposite being true time and time and time and time and time and time and
time and time and time and time and time and time again.

~~~
krapp
>when we have historical precedent of the opposite being true time and time
and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and
time and time again.

Do we? Because we appear to be in one of several threads about how the ease
with which certain content spreads around the internet makes attempts at
censorship futile, and I can legally buy a copy of Mein Kampf and the Turner
Diaries and read the Unabomber's manifesto and all kinds of stuff generally
agreed upon to be "bad things," and I don't see the vast amount of "good
things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of
censorship.

Censorship is applied in different degrees in different places, yes, China is
not the US is not Europe, but that doesn't signal the universal certainty that
"time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time
and time and time and time again" seems to imply.

Maybe the slippery slope is just, like, a tiny slope? Maybe it's a slope but
it's not as slippery as you think? Maybe there's more than one slope?

Or is it just a matter of time until the boot crushes all of our heads, or
something?

~~~
Nadya
_> I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a
result of the slippery slope of censorship._

I would like to ask that you take a moment to reflect on this statement ...
... ... Okay now moving on.

Who's to say they need to censor "good things"? They only need to censor
things that _you don 't agree with censoring_. I won't pretend to know your
political standings but I can guarantee you that your opinion and the
governments opinion on what should be censored will eventually reach a
disagreement.

People tend to give governments powers during a time of need or when they are
frightened often in exchange for "increased safety". A perceived increase of
safety that may - or may not - result in _more safety_ but with 100% certainty
results in _giving up certain rights or freedoms_.

For the easiest example of exchanging things for a perceived increase in
safety. What do you think of the TSA? Is the intrusiveness and racism in the
'random selections' actually resulting in increased safety and security? Or is
it mostly security theater? It tramples over peoples' privacy and sometimes
violates their rights for a _perceived_ increase of safety but the failure
rate is so high that it is meaningless. The government isn't going to get rid
of that power (the TSA) so easily. After all, we gave it to them and they'll
gladly keep up the security theater in exchange.

The U.S signed away large portions of our privacy and removed many checks &
balances placed on the government after the 9/11 attacks. The USA-PATRIOT Act
was forced through in a time of need where people were frightened in exchange
for safety and security.

By the time you realize you've given the government too much power it's far
too late to take any of it back. History is full of examples and history may
not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

------
lumberjack
I think 4chan has gone too far on this one. They should ban neonazi
propaganda. There is a big difference between allowing non-PC talk and
allowing outright neonazi/terrorist propaganda. Besides, it is ruining the
experience on all boards for all people.

~~~
kbenson
You're either for free speech or you're not, and as much as I would like to
have some absolute reference of good and bad, it's all culturally defined.

I mean, _I_ think it's horrible, but I can envision lots of functional and
useful societies that are horrible based on my principles (how would you like
to to be part of a hize mind?), but that doesn't make them bad in an absolute
sense.

Scaled down, freedom of speech is to protect us from changing cultural and mob
rule running roughshod over what we consider good and bad to the detriment of
all. The law would basically just lag internet outrage by a few months or
years.

Edit: This is meant to be interpreted in context, where a platform has taken a
stance that it doesn't censor, and a government blocking that platform. I'm
also not making a stance that _anything_ goes, as speech inciting direct
action against the law (or meant to cause a situation which is immediately and
obviously unsafe) is problematic, and under what I take free speech to embody,
which is freedom of thought and to express those thoughts. As absolutist as
the first words sound, it's not really meant to be interpreted that way, but
more as a call to acknowledge that good and bad are relative to the farthest
degree, which is about as far from absolutist as you can get.

Edit 2: From closer reading, it wasn't actually a government request. The
article notes that the government often issues these through the courts, but
the ISPs acted on their own in this case.

~~~
happytoexplain
>You're either for free speech or you're not

Absolutism is poison.

~~~
spangry
The irony of this statement.

------
tombert
It makes me sad how 4chan has largely been reduced to a place where racists
and bigots and sexists hang out. When I was a teenager, it felt like the
racists in /b/ were doing it ironically (maybe I was wrong?), but now it seems
like a place to spout off white-nationalist nonsense, and whenever its called
out the people fall back on "it's just a joke bro!"

~~~
Oribi
How can you be ironically racist, and why is that better than racism?

~~~
menacingly
The same way you can be ironically anything. It's not immune to modifiers just
because it's offensive.

~~~
tombert
I mean, I do think it's way too easy for someone to say something horrible,
and then get off with no consequences because they claim it's just a joke (or
locker room talk... _cough_ ).

I'm not exactly sure where we draw the line socially. I don't really have a
problem with something like The Colbert Report, but I also really hate the
"shitlord" movement that seems to be happening.

------
sexydefinesher
I dont think the people here saying nazist ideology should be confronted in
the public have actually used 4chan/8chan (anyone thats ever been there knows
/pol/ isnt limited to /pol/). Its not a place of discourse but of propagation
and fuels hate and dehumanization. Id encourage you to go there try out your
debate theory.

------
computerex
It's good that the ISP's decided to act on their own in this case, and they
weren't ordered by the courts. But can't say I am a fan of this. Why
participate in censorship? Once something is on the Internet, it's not gonna
go away. It's trivial to get the shooting footage for those who want to see
it. Censoring is a band aid at best. These tragedies happen because of an
underlying problem. Address gun laws, address xenophobia. Those are the real
problems. Censoring the footage is just going to create more curiosity. It is
giving exclusivity to a killer. The act of censoring the footage is giving
credence to the killer.

Besides, I think there are legitimate uses of this footage. We live in a world
where mass shootings are increasing. But there is no public awareness in
countering these situations. I think at this point we should train students
from a young age, and adults, on what to do if in an active shooter situation.
The fact that this isn't done is incredibly scary to me. I personally saw the
footage, so that I can potentially pick up things from it and potentially save
my life if god forbid I end up in a situation like that.

I am so incredibly saddened and frustrated by the lack of training for these
situations in our society. With a proper response I think so many lives could
have been saved. In this instance, killer went into the mosque and all the
people formed 2 giant clumps/clusters around the 2 door exists on either side
of the central entrance the killer entered from. Killer just unloaded on the
right hand side cluster, then left hand side cluster. He faced practically
zero opposition. One brave man successfully tackled him to the ground but by
that time it was already too late.

I understand that in a panic situation like that it's fight or flight and most
people understandably lose their heads and try to flee, and it is very hard to
coordinate a counter attack to something like this. But this is why I say we
need to bring this type of training in schools and in our day to day lives. I
know it's a morbid reality where such a thing is necessary but alas such is
the reality right now. If everyone had rushed the killer instead of forming 2
giant convenient clusters for the killer to unload into, I think so many lives
would have been saved.

~~~
gsich
>It's good that the ISP's decided to act on their own in this case, and they
weren't ordered by the courts.

What? How is this good, this is obviously extremely bad. Which you also state?

~~~
computerex
Bad wording. It is _better_ than being ordered by the courts, but not good.

------
shiado
It's telling that they don't ban Facebook, the site which was actually used to
stream it.

------
ars
I watched this "illegal" video. And not only do I think it should not be
illegal, I think watching it should be almost _mandatory_!

Package it with a safety curriculum, and people should watch it to know what
to do. In particular: For the most part, those people in the video who ran,
lived, those who tried to drop low, or froze up, died. (There were a couple of
exceptions.)

Additionally, one guy tried to attack the shooter and was killed. But it was
just one guy, everyone else was too scared. If instead they had all attacked,
some would have died, but not as many.

(It sounds like I'm blaming them, I'm not.)

There are a lot of safety lessons in that video, and people should watch it.

~~~
Freak_NL
The chances of being in such a situation are so incredibly small, that
training to deal with it is a wasted effort compared to a host of other stuff
— e.g., learning CPR, taking a course in safely driving in wintery conditions,
employing elementary fire safety precautions in the house, etc. Even
stimulating people to learn to swim if they haven't already saves way more
lives!

If you normalize an attack like this to the point that you start training the
general populace for its (statistically unlikely) occurrence, you have
effectively made terrorism in this form that much more effective.

~~~
nothal
I think the fact these attacks are happening regularly all over the world
normalizes this already. The odds of you being the victim of a terror attack
are low but honestly you don’t need a 15 minute course on tips. Make news
distributors run a 2 minute clip on how to effectively maximize your odds of
survival during every broadcast coverage of a mass shooting. I think it also
changes the narrative in a would be perpetrators mind: if this is about power
over others, to some extent others are now prepared to either flee or
effectively attack a terrorist en masse.

~~~
estebank
> _I think the fact these attacks are happening regularly all over the world
> normalizes this already._

I think you overestimate how common this style of mass shooting are outside of
war zones. Even in places where gun violence is high mass shootings are
incredibly rare[2].

Between 1966 and 2012 there were 18 mass shootings in the country with the
second most count[1].

[1]: [https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-
statistics/in...](https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-
statistics/index.html)

[2]: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-
rank...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-
gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands)

------
DigiMortal
They're arresting people for sharing the video

This is fucked

~~~
bryanlarsen
They're arresting people for sharing the video along with encouraging
comments. They aren't arresting journalists for showing clips.

Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre has always been illegal.

~~~
nothal
As I mentioned further up the thread, it was illegal for about 50 years in the
US as a hypothetical but it’s no longer a legitimate legal standard. Shouting
fire in a crowded theater isn’t illegal (at least, it isn’t not free speech).
See Brandenburg v. Ohio and how it overruled the prior Schenk standard.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Today's illegal speech must incite "imminent lawless action." It could be
argued that sharing the video fails that standard. Probably wouldn't fly in
the US, but we're not talking about the US.

------
vondur
Pretty soon it will be available everywhere. How many sites will they block?

~~~
AtlasLion
Soon drugs will be everywhere so why stop these two drug dealers? how many
drug dealers will they arrest?

~~~
rudedogg
We're kind of figuring out that doesn't work either.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Efficacy_of_the_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Efficacy_of_the_United_States_war_on_drugs)

\------------------

I think the grandparent was referencing this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

~~~
moate
IDK that this constitutes the streisand effect. I don't feel like most people
are going to be actively seeking this out now that it's being banned. Part of
what fuels the streisand effect is that the thing being covered up was
relatively unknown prior to the cover-up. People know the details of this
event. They know, generally, what's on the video.

The fact that it becomes harder to get isn't going to make Joe-Everyman
curious about what the big deal is. He gets that the big deal is that it's a
video of actual humans being actually murdered, and he probably has feelings
about that.

------
RobertRoberts
What happens when a video of "something" bad happens, a person is put in jail
immediately for that "something", but the video is "banned"? And "something"
is not even reported on...

This is a great tool for stifling opposing politics of _any_ kind. And seems
like the easiest way to start an oppressive tyranny than a method of stopping
terrorist propaganda.

Psychos don't need videos like this. Just watch movies, there are many that
are far worse than the New Zealand shooting videos... (and plenty have
propaganda in them as well)

~~~
erentz
You’re making the same mistake everyone is making by assuming that the censor
in this case is answerable to the Govt and can censor anything he/she likes or
is told too. I understand because in the US system that is probably how it
would work, it would be a federal agency, and the censor would be appointed by
each new president and take his marching orders from the president.

Your argument requires beforehand authoritarian capture of all branches of the
NZ government to make sense. At which point the whole suggestion is moot.

~~~
RobertRoberts
No, I am viewing this as a general world-wide trend, censoring for _any_
reason you can get people to agree with first. Then, when people agree to
censorship in general, they won't fight it when it get's really bad, mainly
because they won't know it's happening. (consider China)

The actual "really bad" results of this is years away still. But this is how
freedom of speech is stripped away. Under the guise of safety, one tiny piece
at a time.

Would George Washington have fought the British if the British had succeeded
is censoring every pamphlet? Would India have succeeded in escaping the power
of Britain if Ghandi couldn't speak openly?

If the cost of censorship is tyranny world wide, it's not worth it.

We _need_ freedom of speech, even if it allows kooks the same platform, that
is cost we should be willing to pay.

~~~
erentz
Youre responding to a thread about the New Zealand mosque attacks and the
Office of Film and Literatures classification of this video as objectionable
and expressing concern that this can be used for political purposes to quell
dissenting political opinions, which I have explained why that can’t be used
that way in NZ and you’re mistaken in your understanding of how censorship
works in NZ. Now you say you’re concerned about censorship as a concept
generally in far away historical and authoritarian regimes. These things do
not follow and your concern has no relation to this thread. It’s borderline
bait.

~~~
RobertRoberts
This is _big_ news in the US, the place I feel confident claiming is the last
bastion of free speech. (if there is such a thing)

Viewing this as a NZ only issue is thinking small. There's discussions about
free speech in the US and all over the world about this issue.

~~~
erentz
You said:

> This is a great tool for stifling opposing politics of _any_ kind. And seems
> like the easiest way to start an oppressive tyranny than a method of
> stopping terrorist propaganda.

You’re talking about a tool in New Zealand you clearly knew nothing about but
presumed was some kind of censorship you’d find in a dictatorship. You’ve been
corrected on that. Then your concern was far away authoritarian regimes. Now
your concern is the US and yet you bring up nothing related to how New
Zealand’s Office of Film and Literature’s classification applies to potential
US pathways into tyranny.

~~~
RobertRoberts
The "great tool" is censorship. New Zealand is just the current lightening rod
to push more of it on everyone.

Both NZ and the US and all other countries are becoming more oppressive every
year. Censorship (the tool of tyranny and dictators) is constantly be pushed
to "protect" someone.

If you think NZ won't change because of these events you are deceiving
yourself.

------
debt
I’m wondering if the NZ government have a belief that maybe the shooter’s
ability to livestream the shooting increased his desire to commit the shooting
in the first place.

~~~
mindslight
Alternatively, I feel like seeing the plain video without commentary would
take away a lot of the glamor from these events. See the mood change of Black
Mirror ep01 after he actually fucks the pig.

(from a USian perspective) Instead, we let the media setup a vibrant tradeoff
of emotional tourism versus steering away from direct confrontation. Just
enough so that indulging can be written off as mourning rather than the
goreporn it is.

~~~
Pharmakon
I’m sorry that’s just naive and not at all borne out by history. When
executions were a public spectacle (as in Tyburn) they were a huge party.
People laughed and drank and cheered as people were hanged or drawn and
quartered. I think you underestimate just how turned on a lot of people are by
watching people suffer and die. We need to think very carefully before we
empower people to engage in thst economy again.

~~~
mindslight
I kind of addressed that in my second paragraph (which maybe I hadn't gotten
in before _delay_ ). I think we're already 80% down the slope of engaging in
that economy.

I agree with people's zeal w.r.t public executions, but isn't a key ingredient
of the social validation is that it is a "justified" killing?

~~~
Pharmakon
That was theory, that the state (or monarch) had to show both their power over
life and death, and that the public needed to see thst justice was done. We
(the British) figured out that didn’t even remotely work back in 1783, and
frankly I don’t think that we require a second run at it.

------
everdrive
As a bit of an aside, has anyone noticed that 4chan is not using HTTPS lately?
I assume it's due to the new ownership. Does anyone have more info?

~~~
LinuxBender
Do you mean not enforcing it? You can use the addon "HTTPS Everywhere" to
avoid going to port 80 by mistake.

~~~
everdrive
Well, to be frank, what I really meant was "do you think the lack of HTTPS was
intentional so nefarious actors could be passively identified."

But, I didn't want to pose an allegation like that with so few facts.

~~~
LinuxBender
The boards have a code that is created per message that when used in
conjunction with the thread id, can give the IP. HTTPS only prevents your ISP
from seeing what you are seeing, but there are very few truly "anon" sites. To
be semi-anon, one would have to sit near an open WiFi and use a unique MAC
address and a browser that has never logged into Google. Most people won't
make this effort.

------
dgellow
I’m honestly wondering what will happen when that kind of content starts
spreading on less centralized networks, such as scuttlebutt, or on IPFS, via
Mastodon instances, or others. Things can become bad for decentralization
advocates if 4chan trolls start to use those networks to share and protect
such content from being blocked by governments.

~~~
Nuzzerino
Working as designed, I'd imagine? It would be naive to think that wasn't a
foreseen use case.

Edit: I'm a so-called decentralization advocate and I'd add on to this to say
that the big problem we have right now is that people don't think we need
decentralization at all. Something like this might change some minds.

~~~
dgellow
> Working as designed, I'd imagine? It would be naive to think that wasn't a
> foreseen use case.

Sure, from a technical point of view. But governments and the general public
won’t necessarily see a lack of control over the content as something good or
even legal. I expect to see some clash and fight over those questions if a
significant number of 4chan/8chan users start to migrate to decentralized
platforms.

~~~
Nuzzerino
We already had that fight in the 1990's over Napster and even the WWW in
general, and it ended up with massive centralization of the web.

Disclaimer: Take the below images with a grain of salt, I wasn't able to
verify how they were generated.

Internet Connectivity in 2003 vs 2010 via The Opte Project:

2003:
[https://www.moma.org/collection/works/110263#](https://www.moma.org/collection/works/110263#)

2010: [https://equipping4eministry.com/2015/03/05/a-visual-look-
at-...](https://equipping4eministry.com/2015/03/05/a-visual-look-at-the-
internet-from-2010/)

Unfortunately opte.org appears to be down at the moment (the irony) so I had
to dig these ones up. To me, this is a visualization of what the current
status quo is as far as those in power "addressing" the issue of content.

If you can get 99% of the people using the same websites that are compliant
with what the governments think are okay, then the 1% doesn't matter too much.
So we saw things quietly shifting toward this paradigm. The way I see it is
that the <1% who know how to use the dark web are going to not matter to the
governments too much, as long as that number of people stays low. Significant
numbers of 4chan and 8chan users and others migrating might raise that number
to a point where you'll start to see more proactive measures taken.

But actions like these taken by Australia and NZ (using iron instead of
velvet) will only accelerate the number of people interested in alternatives,
and would therefore undermine the status quo strategy I outlined above.

------
ourmandave
The instance reminds me of the horrible ISIS beheading videos they used to
publish.

I don't remember what social platforms and governments did about those because
I made it a point to avoid them so there was no chance of seeing the horror.

Honestly, who needs the shit popping back in their head during any random
moment?

~~~
RobertRoberts
The "first" beheading video (American contractor in orange jumpsuit in Iraq)
was played on the monitors in the halls and public spaces at the local college
for everyone on the campus to see.

It seems that if the message is supported (attack a foreign country) the
populace will put up with a lot. And it doesn't take anything (just words) to
be censored if they disagree with you.

------
vijaybritto
So facebook live streamed the video and also gives the bad guys a massive
platform. Will they be banned?

------
dmix
I thought we learned this was a bad idea with the whole movie + music industry
the past decade?

------
m23khan
despicable websites such as rotten.com and liveleak should also be banned --
they really mess up human brain. Some reddit subreddits are extremely graphic
and twisted too.

~~~
nothal
Should we maintain websites displaying photographic evidence of the holocaust?
The Vietnam war? Combat footage from Iraq/Afganistan?

~~~
m23khan
there is a difference -- platforms which show case human misery, violence,
gore and carnage for sake of entertainment and/or profit making should be
banned.

Overall, even web search engines and ISPs need to be vigilant during
indexing/hosting of websites and come up with some method of periodic review
of websites being visited/hosted and tag them as appropriate or non
appropriate.

Somebody profiting from somebody's death or misery or injury is not cool and
goes against the very grain of civility.

