
Ask HN: Has anyone tried to debunk the myth that Facebook is listening? - momeunier
For weeks and months, there has been the same conspiracy about Facebook listening to their 2 Billion users to serve targeted ads.<p>Countless questionable youtube videos, reports of all sorts by people who have no idea what it would entail to perform such a stunt on a large scale.<p>After googling extensively, I still can&#x27;t find any real scientific proof that it&#x27;s either true or on true.
It&#x27;s mostly about some people relating their funny experience and mostly about Facebook saying &quot;No we don&#x27;t&quot;<p>Anyone familiar with Charles Proxy would know it&#x27;s pretty easy to spy on the traffic going from an app to the backend.
I work in Facebook advertisement and I&#x27;ve been doing it for various reasons already many times.
I&#x27;ve never seen anything that would like a speech datagram, but then again, it wasn&#x27;t what I was looking for when listening to the Facebook app.<p>I would expect that given Google and Apple should be scrupulous about what the Facebook app does and doesn&#x27;t, there should be a host of people who&#x27;ve been looking into that urban legend a number of time.
Also the data plan of many people would simply explode too quickly for this to be true.<p>With my colleagues, we&#x27;ve been wondering if it would be possible to rely on a local text-to-speech engine running on the phone. Needless to say that would drain the battery pretty quickly and the dataset needed in the app would be pretty huge... But is it? And would it really drain the battery? More than Pokemon or the Facebook app...?<p>Who among you guys is a seasoned user of Charles and could run the experiment a tad further?
======
ricardobeat
The lack of actual responses to your question here is a bit entertaining. "Of
course they are not", "it's not possible", "iOS/Android is safe" etc. Almost
like it is offensive to ask.

I can't help but remember my incredulous reaction to ECHELON in the 90s and
how it turned out to be not just true, but much worse than the original
"conspiracy theory".

A very relevant example:
[https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569](https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569)

~~~
semperdark
This post was built to influence the largest number of people possible. The
title is worded to reach people that don't click with the suggestion that the
accepted view in the community is that they aren't spying. It's also by a
newly-created account made by a Facebook Ads employee.

The microphone privacy invasion rumor has spread so far without evidence
because people are tired of the 1000 other privacy invasions for which there
is evidence. They don't care whether or not this specific instance is true.
People are tired of FB being openly scummy at every other turn. FB is the
least respected tech company for a reason.

~~~
momeunier
Happy to debunk this in whichever way you want! I definitely don't work for
Facebook. Also I have been consuming HN content for years without
contributing. There has to be a first day...

I do work closely with Facebook (For a Facebook Marketing Partner called
Smartly.io) and we collaborate closely on certain aspects. I think I have a
very deep understanding of what Facebook is capable of and that's the reason
why I want to debunk this. Also, I am really tired of hearing the questionable
reports.

Look me up if you which:
[https://www.linkedin.com/in/momeunier/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/momeunier/)

------
godelski
My answer to this has always been "Why would they need to?" It drains battery,
it sends a lot of data, and would be a huge scandal. But you are already
telling them where you are, who you're with, and they have information about
your credit, etc.

Instead, I've been using this as an opportunity to teach people why big data
is scary. In the past people often said they didn't care that Google could,
and do, read their emails. Often responding with the ironic "I have nothing to
hide" quote, or "I don't care, my stuff is boring." This pervasive rumor, of
Facebook/Google always listening, has facilitated this conversation immensely.
I've been able to better explain it to many who are not tech or statistic
savvy in the least.

I don't believe Facebook is listening, because they don't need to.

~~~
ghughes
Or in other words, they _are_ listening, just not to your voice. Their product
is an intelligence-gathering apparatus that works at scale without microphones
or other traditional surveillance tools.

~~~
godelski
I'd phrase that as "they're watching" not listening. More like having a
private eye tail you. They can't hear exactly what you say (well maybe) but
they sure do see everything you do.

------
joshfraser
I was at lunch with a couple friends and they were making fun of Juicero. I
hadn't heard of it at this point. I didn't look it up on my phone, but at
least one of my friends did. That afternoon I started seeing Juicero ads non-
stop on Facebook. Was Facebook listening or did they connect the dots that my
phone was in the same restaurant as friends who were Googling Juicero and
figured we had been talking about it?

Another time I was on a road trip with a friend, driving through a food
desert. We were talking about our food options -- stuff we never eat like
McDonalds, Wendys, etc. Guess what pops up on Facebook moments later? An ad
for Wendys! Were they listening? Or did they just connect the dots that it was
lunch time, that we'd been driving for a long time without eating & that
Wendys was one of the only options around?

In both instances, there were non-microphone explanations but
creepy/impressive nonetheless.

~~~
notatoad
>Guess what pops up on Facebook moments later? An ad for Wendys! Were they
listening?

If you saw an ad for Wendy's in any other context, would you have been
surprised?

I saw an ad for Wendy's shortly before coming to comment on this post. Are
HN's advertising algorithms predicting the future, or is it just a coincidence
due to the overwhelming volume of fast food advertising?

~~~
joshfraser
I can't remember seeing one before & haven't seen one since.

------
maxfurman
Every one of my friends, including me, has a story about how they used a
phrase in conversation that they don't typically say ("Renaissance Faire" in
my case, which I have never attended and generally have no interest in), and
then seeing an ad for it on either Facebook or Instagram right afterwards.
This is purely anecdotal, of course, but it is creepy anyway. The only way to
stop this "myth", if it is one, is for Facebook to stop doing whatever it is
they do instead of listening to us to get to this unnerving level of
targeting.

~~~
mverwijs
Alternate explanation: the person(s) you discussed this with did some
google'ing and browsing. The tracking cookies do their thing and since you and
those persons are linked, you end up with the ads served.

~~~
cryoshon
a good alternative hypothesis, but also one that should be proveable, at least
in some cases.

designing an experiment to test this would be quite easy.

ultimately your explanation could exist alongside audio snooping, perhaps even
helping to resolve areas of ambiguity...

------
Cenk
The excellent "Reply All" podcast had an episode about it:
[https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-
spying/](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/)

------
mikeash
It’s trivial to debunk by observing that many people who say they’ve
experienced this are using iPhones. On iOS, apps can’t silently use the
microphone in the background. A background app using the microphone is always
accompanied by a red status bar saying that they’re doing it. This doesn’t
show Facebook listening, therefore we can conclude that they’re not, at least
on iOS.

It’s possible they might be doing it on Android, but once you show that a lot
of people are imagining things, it’s a small leap to thinking that they all
are.

~~~
ben_jones
Wasn't there just a story about Apple giving Uber special permissions (which
were not turned off after they were no longer needed) so they could do stuff
on the Apple watch? Is it that much of a stretch to think they would also give
Facebook special permissions?

~~~
mikeash
Yes, it is that much of a stretch. Apple temporarily gave Uber that special
permission in order to make their Watch app work better for their users. It’s
extremely unlikely that Apple would give Facebook special permission in order
to spy on users to no benefit to the people who actually pay Apple money. And
somehow it’s gone unnoticed all this time.

~~~
mikeash
I didn't realize it when I wrote the above, but this makes my case much
stronger: these special entitlements are listed as part of the app. It's far
from obvious to the end user, but people who know how to look at them can do
so. Either nobody knowledgeable has ever looked at Facebook's entitlements, or
it doesn't have one that would let them do this.

------
jesseddy
All I know is that things that I have talked about with my phone around 1-2
days prior, I suddenly see ads for. Things I did not Google or mention on the
Internet. In one case I started seeing ads on Instagram for a product that I
posted a photo of and did not even include the product's name in the post.
Dishwashing liquid that I would never even buy (I'm not the target user so it
wasn't target marketing).

It's all a little too much for me to believe it's a coincidence.

------
nxc18
The burden of proof falls on the people making claims that facebook is
listening. Absent that, it seems extremely unlikely that facebook is recording
audio and no one has posted in outrage about it - streaming audio would be
quite conspicuous.

Even more troubling than audio recording in this case is that facebook has so
much information about you that they don’t need it. The idea that facebook
knows the approximate content of your conversations/thoughts to the point that
it seems like they’re listening should be deeply troubling.

If facebook knows the content of your conversation, seemingly before or at the
same time that you have it, what does that mean for free will? Agency?
(Obviously free will is bs, but most people I’ve talked to refuse to
acknowledge that - is this a wake-up call?)

What other predictions can they make? With the level of information given to
facebook (browsing history, precise location, when you’re asleep and when
you’re awake, and possibly much more, like your cell account info and the TV
you watch) they can build a very complete picture of your life, and may even
know things about yourself that you don’t know.

Of course, when facebook is actively listening to you (e.g. for facebook
messenger) all bets are off. They already read your conversations anyway, so
it’s not a far jump.

------
pcl
I don’t think FB is listening because all the stories I’ve heard can be
explained by their graph.

I think it’s hard to debunk because people don’t recognize how powerful their
knowledge graph is at this point, and simultaneously underestimate how hard
general-purpose speech recognition is, even with studio-level audio setups.
And especially to a non-programmer, I think it seems so much easier to just
figure out speech recognition than to maintain a huge knowledge graph about
billions of people, their connections (explicit and implicit), their current
whereabouts, the sites they are visiting, and the text they literally give to
Facebook in the form of messages etc. But of course, each one of those things
is a tractable problem, and can progress independently of the others, until
all of a sudden it’s so good it seems like they must be inside our heads, or
at least listening.

But here’s the thing: I think all that big data is actually waaaaay creepier.
If they were just listening in and showing relevant ads, that’d be one thing.
But instead they have all this data going back years, and can make all these
inferences from the data. Just imagine what inferences could be made about
non-advertising topics!

------
hyperbolejoe
I proposed a thought to Reddit, but have no proof of its possibility either
technically or practically.

The people we talk with are generally the people we are connected with on
social media. It's feasible to me that a conversation happens and someone in
the group makes a search, which then maybe causes algorithms using location
data to push those ads to people in that location.

Further, what's being talked about is probably being talked about and searched
by others in the area and/or with the same interests, so even if it isn't
localized quite so much the possibility of what's being talked about to
generate ads is heightened.

Finally, there's the confirmation bias and recency bias at play. Once
something is known or on mind, it's more likely to be noticed. They may have
already had those ads coming in and only noticed them after talking about it.
Or, the ads might have even caused the person to subconsiouciously think about
the thing.

The psychology at play in advertising is advanced.

------
wildanimal402
"Facebook does not use your phone’s microphone to inform ads or to change what
you see in News Feed. Some recent articles have suggested that we must be
listening to people’s conversations in order to show them relevant ads. This
is not true. We show ads based on people’s interests and other profile
information – not what you’re talking out loud about,” said Facebook in a
statement last year. “We only access your microphone if you have given our app
permission and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires
audio. This might include recording a video or using an optional feature we
introduced two years ago to include music or other audio in your status
updates.”

Source:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2017/10/31/faceboo...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2017/10/31/facebook-
ads-microphone/#1f13abc3534d)

------
tkb608
Facebook listening to their customer's concerns about privacy? Yes, that myth
has been throughly debunked.

------
jesseddy
Maybe local text-to-speech is not plausible given the heavy processing and
battery drain. What if instead there is a list of words/brands being listened
for; my phone is always listening for "OK, Google."

------
scarface74
I can't speak for Android, but there are a number of precautions on iOS.

The first one is that iOS gives users very fine grained control over what apps
are allowed to use the microphone. It's not just a list of permissions, it
asks specifically with a system dialogue box whether you want to allow an app
to have permission.

Second, the status bar turns a very obvious red color when an app is using the
microphone when it's in the background.

If FB was able to bypass both of those safeguards without Apple knowing, it
would be a major story.

------
notatoad
Install the facebook app on lineageOS, open up privacy guardian, and see for
yourself exactly how often it uses your microphone. It's definitely not
listening to everything you say.

~~~
superbrama
Just pointing out that this is far from a conclusive invalidation technique.
Too many ways such spyware could still exist or operate.

~~~
notatoad
i realize i'm fighting a losing battle by posting in a conspiracy theory
thread, but okay: what are those ways that the facebook app could listen to
you without the OS knowing it's using the microphone?

~~~
superbrama
I don’t know, but one would need to thoroughly audit the code to find out one
way or another. One would not draw conclusions about the non-existence of such
a feature just because they’ve made exterior measurements (exterior to the
black box blob of fb code) that don’t give affirmative indication. Contrarily
if the technique you described did uncover such surreptitious microphone
activity, that might be a bit more conclusive.

(Hard to disprove until you’ve considered all ways it could occur, and
reviewed each one, and even that leaves possibilities for mistakes in method
or theory)

The viewpoint is that there’s no hard evidence such behavior occurs from their
code, not that it couldn’t be the case (still). Maybe some revelation will
come out but I’m not betting on it. Fb is too smart for that and their
official explanation makes sense.

For those that “believe”, this lesson never gets old:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_\(listening_device\))
In this example, if your theory for locating a bug was based on the
requirement of an electrical signal, you’d have missed such a bug entirely.
Next to impossible therefore to disprove such a bug exists, if you can’t
consider all of the ways in which it can exist. Hope that helps you on your
mission to learn reverse engineering (a skill sadly missed in the USA throw it
away culture)

------
superbrama
Without hard evidence (speech processing code, or evidence of the recordings
over the wire), it’s reasonable to take the official account at face value.
Frankly that account is far creepier. They’ve built AI so smart that it knows
what you’re talking about.

Think about it for a minute. Fb and others have so much data on people and
have trained algos so well, even they don’t understand how they work so well.
It’s not difficult to imagine this is the case; a computer, especially one
with extensive data on the lifes, behaviors and thoughts of billions of
people, is far smarter and better at predicting behavior than any human could.

Scary is that it’s just the beginning. I fall squarely into the alarmist camp
on the AI issue. Not now, but in the long run. One can see how this scenario
with the fb ad microphone spying paranoia thats actually 1 million IQ AI
flexing its muscle is but the beginning of a slippery slope.

------
chmike
Facebook may only need to recognize a few keywords. The one that companies had
payed for. It wouldn't be that many. An approximate recognition is good
enough. So processing and data transmission could be small.

As long as there is no uncontestable proof, the doubt must benefit Facebook.

The testimonies are not uncontestbale proofs. Considering the million people
uisng the facebook app, there will always be a small set of people who will
see advertisement of what they just talked about. That is statistic. Some of
these, understandably chocked, may be very vocal about it.

We also know that people are payed to spread fake news and manipulate people.
So I'm cautious. The truth is unknown, and the longer it takes to get
uncontestable proofs, the less credible the listening thesis becomes.

Facebook can't do much appart to let it rain. Open source is the way I would
go. That is one way to calm down paranoid or conspirationist people.

~~~
cryoshon
>As long as there is no uncontestable proof, the doubt must benefit Facebook.

they have a history of privacy violations

they have an incentive to snoop further

i see no reason to offer the benefit of the doubt to either hypothesis, as
anecdotes do not constitute data

but for what it's worth, my hunch is that there's some extra snooping going on
that has yet to be unearthed. might not be audio, necessarily.

~~~
superbrama
Interesting, curious to hear more. What techniques are you referring to? Some
re-appropriation of mobile hardware for cross sensory applications? Data
sharing of some kind?

------
Ninn
I believe that facebook in no way can accomplish this at scale without getting
caught.

Even so, i recon that your approach to test them is flawed, instead you should
either of the following:

1\. Reverse engineer the applications that has access to actually capture
audio from the microphone to start with, i.e. the Messenger app on android.

2\. Create a kernel module/microphone driver, which records when and which
applications actually access the microphone. If the facebook apps are actually
found accessing the microphone outside of a user initiated scope, one could
bring the experiment to the next level and record the same audio recoding and
save it for later review.

I recon 1. has already been done by several researchers, especially in
relation to bug bounty programs etc. but that doesnt really mean that you
should try to do it again for your own research.

------
burningion
I think this is really something even more nefarious than background
listening.

Facebook and Google are using machine learning and massive data sets about the
mental worlds we inhabit when we think nobody is looking.

And these algorithms are optimizing for clicks in so many vectors of
psychological need and vulnerability that it’s already become incomprehensible
for how they can know the things we haven’t yet understood we will think
about.

They know about our conversations because they know the searches of the people
we talk to, and what they’re thinking about. What will be on the top of their
mind.

There’s nothing to go looking for or debunk. It’s just the next step in the
data collection experiment.

I’m guessing they’ll need to tone down the effectiveness of ad targeting, if
they haven’t already.

~~~
cryoshon
for those of us who are digital natives, even if we spend great effort in
covering our tracks, they likely know more about us than we know about
ourselves.

they use this information to employ a system of psychological levers which
results in us willingly handing their proxies our money.

is it a good business practice. certainly. is it simple theft? my instinct is
to say no, and instead ask:

is this new mastery of knowledge about peoples behaviors and the ability to
affect other behaviors on a mass scale the most terrifying form of feudalism
that mankind has known?

------
jdblair
Reply All, an entertaining podcast from Gimlet Media, tackled this topic a few
weeks ago [0]. They explained the myth, explained how Facebook's advertising
an be explained without surreptitious listening. In the last part they called
believers in the myth and tried to convince them otherwise.

[0] [https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-
spying/](https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/)

------
Balgair
Anyone with a heavy accent have these 'coincidences'? I imagine that a thick
accent (Scots,etc) would be much harder to have this happen to.

------
enraged_camel
I personally find the alternative far creepier: that Facebook can figure you
out and predict your behaviors even if it doesn’t actively listen.

~~~
cJ0th
There certainly is a double standard. I.e.: it is creepy when FB listens to
you conversations. But if they use AI to derive their knowledge about you that
somehow makes it alright.

For me personally, the fact that they _can_ learn so much about me is what's
creepy and reason enough to not use their services. The _how_ is merely an
interesting bit of trivia.

------
retube
is there any evidence cameras are used? I've recently been engaged in two
activities in front of my phone and got scarily relevant ads that I've never
seen before, and are can not be part of my graph. I am not on social networks
and none of my browsing or search would be vaguely relevant.

------
kirykl
It’s really amazing that people think Facebook is listening. It’s like wearing
a name tag and assuming someone is psychic when they call your name.

------
timthelion
This is pretty much impossible to debunk because:

A) Given Facebooks policy of A/B testing, it almost certainly isn't listening
all the time.

and more importantly,

B) Now that everyone is talking about it, Facebook would have been stupid NOT
to turn it off at least for now.

~~~
superbrama
Would they even take a chance on this with _anyone_ knowing it’ll eventually
be discovered or reverse engineered? Why not take their account at face value?
(We’ve built AI that is so smart that it can predict your conversations).

~~~
timthelion
Volkswagen

~~~
superbrama
Thought experiment for both scenarios:

I’d guess that my emissions cheat code blob is “safe” since no one is looking.
(That guess was wrong of course).

I’d guess that my fb app code, installed on billions of phones and scrutinized
by researchers the world over isn’t going to be able to hide anything related
to processing or transmitting speech recording surreptitiously.

~~~
timthelion
Thought experiment for both scenarios:

Every significant national government has a major agency in charge of
protecting the environment from harmful emissions with many paid engineers
devoted to emissions testing.

None of the major national governments except Germany have an agency devoted
to ensuring that devices do not en fringe on user privacy.

If you think that Volkswagen is a bad example take AstraZeneca [1]. No one had
to prove that they had committed fraud by missmarketing their drugs. Much of
the marketing material was publicly available. Everyone who knew the law, knew
that they were breaking it.

Or perhaps you could look at Seimens, which outright bribed, using bags of
cash, government officials, in order to close deals [2].

Moral of the story, corporations break laws.

If Facebook is listening to you using your phones microphone, that's not even
illegal outside of Germany.

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-
pay-520-mi...](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/astrazeneca-
pay-520-million-illegally-marketing-seroquel-schizophrenia/story?id=10488647)

[2]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/business/worldbusiness/16s...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/business/worldbusiness/16siemens.html)

~~~
superbrama
Valid points but doesn’t address the basic idea that fb knows their code is
widely scrutinized. If they process or transmit audio surreptitiously, or have
done so, they’d be found out. Their app is so pervasive that it’s exceedingly
unlikely that they’d be able to hide any such mechanism for long.

------
paulcole
The people who believe it’s listening would never accept even the most
ironclad “proof” that it’s not. This is a hallmark of conspiracy theorists.

So why bother?

~~~
logicallee
I believe it's listening based on an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence
reported all over the Internet. (Where there's smoke, there's fire.) Including
by intelligent, scientifically-minded people.

At the same time, it wouldn't take much at all for me to believe otherwise: a
simple blinded test where some people leave their phones in a room,
researchers come and talk about some subject (absent the owners), then leave
without ever interacting with the owners of the phone.

There are two ways to do the next part: The owners of the phone 1 week later
could be asked if they've seen any facebook ads on (topic). A control group
would have to be compared (where researchers didn't speak on the topic.)

Alternatively, the subjects of the study could be given 5 random topics when
commencing the study and asked to record any ads they've seen on any of the 5
topics. The researchers could then speak on 1 of the 5 topics (differing from
person to person) and a statistical analysis could be performed.

A "proof" is a statistically valid correlation between what the researchers
talked about out and what the blinded subjects reported seeing ads about.

A refutation is a lack of such a correlation. Easy, and it would convince me
personally.

By the way based on the anecdotal evidence I strongly expect this study to
conclude "facebook is listening."

-

Note: there are a few loose ends to take care of. The researchers who are
tasked with speaking on a subject are more likely to google it on their own
phones. (Having been exposed to the topic), and those are in geographic
vicinity. There are other similar possible mechanisms.

Perhaps the best approach is if subjects' phones are in a sound-proof vault
and the researchers' speech is either fed into it via speaker/microphone, or
not done so, but the researchers do not know for any specific phone whether it
is able to hear them. (Making the study "double-blind", as neither the
subjects nor the researchers know whether the subjects' phones have heard
anything on a subject.).

~~~
momeunier
I don't agree with your proposed way of studying this. You're trying to study
a symptom and then conclude on the cause of the symptom. That makes no sense.
If you want to prove that Facebook is listening, then prove that Facebook is
listening. And don't try to prove that Facebook is listening and then
targeting you with ads based on what you said. There are way too many levels
of indirections that can trigger false positive for a vast number of reasons
you don't control at all. What you are trying to do is replicate in large-
scale displays of anecdotes but with a slightly more controlled environment.
That won't prove anything since it will just be anecdotes and will again not
sustain rational explanation by experts of Facebook ads mechanisms.

Without getting into the ads delivery part and the anecdotes, how would you
prove that Facebook is listening? How would you prove that there is a set of
information taken from your speech or your audible environment transferred to
Facebook.

~~~
logicallee
I think you didn't read my proposed methodology carefully.

    
    
        Box     Researcher    | Owner of phone (outside room)
      [     ]~       x        |      o
    
    

The researchers speaks about some subjects, but not others. The ~ represents
that in some cases the researcher's conversations are being fed into the box,
and in others they are not. The box is otherwise soundproof, and inside is the
phone being tested.

We can pick subjects such as:

    
    
       - #1 Adult incontinence
       - #2 Cat food
       - #3 Last-minute trip
       - #4 ..
       -    ..
       - #10
    

The test group is that the researchers' voices are being fed into the box. The
control group is that researchers voices are NOT being fed into the box.

It is important in order to maintain double-blind environment that the
researchers not hear whether they are being amplified into the box.

The results might potentially look like this:

[https://imgur.com/a/y7852](https://imgur.com/a/y7852)

Of course, I just made this up. (I imagine the subjective 1-5 scores being
whether the given subject reports seeing such an advertisement, from 0
definitely not to 5 definitely yes.) I even made subject 3 unsure about topics
1 and 3 to mimic that humans are fallible. Likewise subject 2 does not really
report any advertisements. (This is likely in the real world - for example
subject 2 could be explicitly excluded by advertisers for some reason.)

The attached is the kind of graphs that I would _expect_ based on dozens of
scientifically-minded people trying them.

If these are the two graphs that we got, and if the test and control groups
were truly randomized, what other explanation could you offer?

Of course, my proposed experiment is orders of magnitude more scientific than
what people are doing with their n=1, unblinded personal experiments. But
theirs has some validity also.

~~~
momeunier
Thanks for explaining further. That would actually be an interesting
experiment. Who's going to run it?

~~~
logicallee
Not sure who would run it. Nobody really cares _that_ much.

