The thing that so many people fail to realize is that the data isn't valuable in and of itself. Excluding the type of information that lets you steal identities (and therefore bank accounts), there's not much you can do with huge swaths of data. There's not really a market for sheer information.
What makes Facebook (and other platforms that use your personal data) valuable is that they have both information about you and a place where they can show you ads. These platforms are not, contrary to popular belief, trying to "sell" your information. They're allowing advertisers to use the platform to display ads to you based on that information. The data is a means to an end, which is showing you relevant ads.
If everyone stopped using Facebook tomorrow, the value of all the information Facebook has gathered would be negligible. The real reason Facebook is worth $X Billion is because a significant portion of the population of the world logs in to use same product every day.
In other words, your attention is the thing that is valuable. Your data just lets advertisers be really efficient in how they pay for your attention.
What? How is this even remotely true?! Do you have any sort of factual backing behind this viewpoint?
Facebook has years and billions of data points on human interaction between friends, lovers, acquaintances, and enemies. Facebook can determine your lifestyle, sexual orientation, socio economic status, and whether or not you're married just from your friend list. Facebook has one of the largest sources of demographic information on the planet, and each of those demographics has told facebook exactly what their hopes, dreams, interests, and fears are.
This is an absolutely ridiculous line of reasoning that willfully ignores the fact that knowledge, and more importantly knowledge about you, is almost pure power. By this same logic Gmail is only worth money because they have a tiny bar above your inbox that people look at, as opposed to having an enormous machine learning corpus of people's intimate communications.
If anything, the simple fact that algorithmic traders are using Facebook's open graph data to find an edge on the stock market is blatant proof that the real money is in the data.
>>> If everyone stopped using Facebook tomorrow, the value of all the information Facebook has gathered would be negligible.
Just like if everyone stopped using the internet today all the information the NSA has gathered would be negligible, right?
What if the model was flipped, so instead of advertisers paying Facebook to cover their operation costs, individual users covered their own operation costs, and perhaps the advertisers directly subsidized individual users at the time of publication? This would mean that people who wanted to pay could turn off advertising and just use Facebook as pay-as-they-go service.
I dunno what kind of accounting they're doing at Facebook, but with their current approach of having advertising indirectly subsidizing users, there is no price discovery mechanism. Right now there's no way to price how much a user is worth and how much they actually cost, which seems like a very strange way to run a business.
This type of accounting, where the content itself is given a cost and a value, would mean it we're finally treating what people publish as intellectual property instead of the "user being the product".
---
Edit, to expand on perhaps the advertisers directly subsidized individual users at the time of publication:
Ah, I think you're assuming that I'm saying they should go to a completely paid-for-in-cash-by-users model... which I'm not!
I'm just saying that if they flipped the model, and covered the operations costs directly from users, that the books would make more sense. This would make the accounting significantly more complex, so I wasn't making an argument for simplicity, rather as much detail and accuracy as possible! This information can be later analyzed and acted upon in simple ways.
This doesn't mean that there can't be a free to use service on top of a model like this. It just means that advertisers are literally paying on behalf of users for hosting, distribution and other operating costs.
This would mean that there wouldn't be advertisements on the read-side, in the "stream", rather on the write-side, when publishing... like with sponsored posts... Like, I personally choose to make my post sponsored by the Buffalo Bills because I love giving my money to the Buffalo Bills and the NFL (which I really do).
Or maybe some low-rent ads make you watch a 20 second video before paying for you to upload 200 photos from your phone, but at least you don't have to associate yourself with them.
We're smart enough to create the kinds of incentive structures that have made intellectual property function in a market economy for hundreds of years, we just need to revisit some deep fundamentals about how we buy and sell information.
It'll work out better for everyone. Facebook could take a percentage of the business for having created the market that introduced the advertisers to the authors. The authors are now free to do business as they please, directly covering their own costs or choosing to have them subsidized. The advertisers can establish better relationships with the authors, essentially treating them like business partners.
>> The thing that so many people fail to realize is that the data isn't valuable in and of itself.
It is valuable to the company you're giving it to since they get paid by the advertising. They also get money from their partners who we so graciously agree to allow them to "share" it with which happens to be for profit for them.
>> The data is a means to an end, which is showing you relevant ads.
>> If everyone stopped using Facebook tomorrow, the value of all the information Facebook has gathered would be negligible.
They can still sell your information to whomever they want which means even in your scenario they would still be making tons of money, I'm guessing here, hundreds of millions IMHO. So your arguments are not correct.
The thing that so many people fail to realize is that the internet needs a totally different structure or service that operates on a totally different premise that retains data with their owner, their person.
I relish seeing the day that Facebook is jettisoned for a system of distributed and individual ownership of profiles and data, like the internet should be. Humanity strayed at some point when the nefarious actors like Zuckerberg and his predecessors came in and started stealing your data, stealing your person, removing the information from you that your liberty and freedom is built on. You are not a free person when you are on the internet, your person is being smeared and skimmed everywhere you go and things against your choosing or even awareness are being done to your person and identity by people and for reasons you did not authorize. That's not liberty, that's not freedom.
I'm not the biggest fan of FB or for the fact that I pretty much have to use it to keep up with friends and family these days.
These are some things that you get in exchange for giving up your information:
A place to store photos
A platform to publish your photos
A communications platform (Messenger)
A platform to stay officially connected to things you "like" and their updates
Near instant publication of your brain thoughts to a curated group of people
High availability
Maintenance of connections to other people
IRL event management
Mobile and web applications to use the aforementioned
Some of the best engineering talent in the world working on the aforementioned
I think the average person does get a lot in exchange. Look at all of the other social networks that tried to solve this in the past and failed. I don't see any legitimate alternatives.
I don't have a FB account and I get all those things. I also don't feel like "Some of the best engineering talent in the world working on the aforementioned" is a compelling reason to give away my personal information.
The fact that you're almost forced to use it bugs me. I don't have a beef with Facebook, but I just don't get a lot of it.
It sucks though when you miss things that you would have heard on there. For example, I found out too late that somebody whom I was good friends with had a family member pass away. They didn't do an obituary, and folks that I talk to regularly IRL didn't mention it, because they figured I saw it on Facebook!
A platform to stay officially connected to things you "like" and their updates -
This doesn't work for long time already. If you have liked something, you rarely see the updates anymore unless the page owners pay for Facebook. It's called Boosting now. Really sucks for small companies or communities, unless you pay - your page is dead.
For me personally, Event management is the only thing it keeps me on Facebook. Part of it's success if of course because everyone is on Facebook, which makes it easy.
But again, if you're a small Facebook page owner and want to invite your loyal fans to your own event you created under your page - Good luck with inviting them, you can't - need you pay again.
That's true. Facebook does give you something in return. In a way it's better than the new model we're seeing with these expensive home automation devices that upload everything to the cloud. In that case you pay for the privilege of installing a surveillance device.
I predict failure on a lot of that. The value provided is not sufficient to justify the cost alone, and then on top of that you add privacy concerns. That means I'm paying for a net negative.
I definitely agree with the list but as far as offering something else that nobody else has done or having any legit alternatives, that's where my main problems with Facebook lie.
Others have come up with legit alternatives and doubtless more would try if not for the fact that their biggest asset is lack of interoperability or common protocol. They managed to get just about everyone, techie and non-techie, to sign up and a lot of those people just won't pull up stakes to move to another platform as long as the rest of their "contacts" are using Facebook.
When compared to other communication services that are often hosted by third party companies (webmail is the easiest example) there's really just no way to use something else without still using Facebook in addition. It's not like switching to Gmail or Hotmail because you got tired of your old @aol.com account. In that case you can use any competitor and still communicate with people regardless of whether they switch or ever use the same service as you.
But with Facebook, I can't just start using Google+ or some other service to keep up with friends and family unless they all switch over as well. Or rather, I can switch over but I still need to use Facebook in addition. Same would go for another service even if it was built on a common protocol.
That's the main problem I have with Facebook (or any other service that uses the same model). It's not that I can't find or build something that works better for me. It's that it doesn't matter unless everyone does the same and that simply isn't very likely right now or in the near future.
> "Look at all of the other social networks that tried to solve this in the past and failed."
FB has a network effect, which a a major reason all those products/services get used. However, it's not really fair to imply that FB is 'succeeding' at all the things you listed. If it were, then there'd be little talk of existential threat from things like Instagram/Whatsapp etc...
You will somehow need to give your personal information for a social network to work and to receive these services in return. For e.g., u need to identify yourself and your friends to make sure only your friends can see your photos and vice versa. Question is how much info is too much.
This is silly. Yes, if you're not the one paying, then you're the product. However, I do get things in return - I get to connect with people I don't get to see too often anymore and see what they're up to in their lives. Everyone and their grandma has one, so I know if I'm trying to find someone they're on there. It also reminds me of people's birthdays, which I'm pretty terrible with otherwise.
People do get things out of facebook. Why else would they be on it all the time, checking it at least a couple times a day?
From what I observe[1] they're on it all the time because its a diversion. TV is another worthless diversion[2] but at least the TV networks don't (yet) sell your private information. But ultimately there is very little on Facebook that I see as critical or something I can't get from a myriad of other sources.
1: Watching my wife peruse FB but I suspect she is an example of a typical user.
2: I'll grant that worthless diversions have their place when used sparingly. But neither FB nor TV are used sparingly by most people unfortunately.
Similarly, newyorker.com should pay us. Their site seems to be running Adobe DMP, revenue science, Facebook, google ads, parsely and pointroll, so they've certainly got quite a bit of info on us.
(Incidentally, privacy badger is a pretty nice plugin.)
I don't trust Facebook. At one point I even deleted my account. But, FB has allowed me to get back in contact with friends I made in college and at my first job (in Panama). The reward to me has been tremendous. It has meant so much to me. Prices are not just a function of costs, but also what consumers are willing to pay.
Also I think this article over-values personal information in a world where your local supermarket, Amazon, ad networks, the government, etc. already know so much about us. In that context, you aren't giving up that much additional privacy by also sharing with Facebook -- the price you are paying may not be that great.
I went to a conference last month where software vendors would do an RFID scan of your conference badge.
My coworker (I do not have facebook) had companies that had scanned his badge show up on his Facebook advertisement feed the next day.
To me, this was the real eye opener. Facebook doesn't just sell to advertisers the promise of groups of users. They can offer to sell to you, specifically, by name if they want to.
Most likely, your friend was targeted for advertising using Facebook's custom audiences. FB let advertisers upload a list of email addresses or Facebook IDs to show ads to.
Personally, I consider this much further on the creepy scale than it is on the genuinely worrisome scale, more creepy than harmful. It's pretty creepy though, so.. relativity.
this is actually really easy - you can target adverts to anyone you have an email address for on Facebook - just upload a list of email addresses and you can "retarget" them
Surely, if you value your privacy then don't bother using Facebook at all.
More precisely, she wants the company to offer a cash option (about twenty cents a month, she calculates) for people who value their privacy, but also want a rough idea of what their friends’ children look like.
They could just email with their friends. It's unclear to me, at least, that a 'feed' of data about people I know is an important service. Clearly, I must be an outlier given the number of people I see looking at Facebook every day.
This will not change until regulators step in and force companies to disclose what they store, how they use it and most importantly, what behaviors they are actively attempting to coerce their users into.
Much like the agriculture industry, tech companies that deal in user data use the shield of trade secrets, NDAs, lobbying etc to hide their actions from the public as they all know that if they general public knew what they were truly doing, they would have a much more difficult choice when deciding upon using that service.
It's not that users don't care or think they are getting a good value for their information, it's that users have so little information about how it is being used.
Once again, someone has proposed that an ad supported company offer subscriptions for exactly its revenue-per-user, without seeming to realize that not all users are equally valuable to advertise to, and only the most valuable ones will opt out.
I would reckon that the market for personal data is lot bigger. 45 billion e-mails, 10 billion text messages and submit 95 million Tweets are sent in an average day. Now according to this article:
each piece of data is worth about $2. Now, simple maths would tell any company that making money off that data is a lot more profitable than collecting $0.20. Also, how many people would actually want to enrol in such a premium service? It would not be every person that uses Facebook, for sure. Plus, selling off the data is lot easier than soliciting people to buy their premium product (people give them the licence to do so through the ToS).
Fun Graph API fact: while it's incredibly easy for any user to scrape data off of public Facebook Pages (https://github.com/minimaxir/facebook-page-post-scraper), it is very hard to scrape personal data from people on Facebook, even if you are Friends with them or their Facebook statuses are public. Personal data is much more valuable.
I've tried multiple endpoints to do so (for data analytics purposes) and they have all failed. The only way to get data on a person is for them to opt into granting the necessary permissions for the app.
We should really think about who we give our personal information to, how that information is stored, and why it's being collected because the trend here seems to be that companies are expanding their collection efforts and it's reaching a point where (some) people are seeking alternatives. If you don't mind trading your information like photos, locations, address book, and browser history, then Facebook is a good tool to stay connected with people. On the other hand, if you want that information to stay private, you should still be able to connect and share online with your friends and family.
I'm surprised there is no mention of tsu.co, a Facebook clone that attempts to pay contributors revenue-share based on their social connections. The site rapidly grew to around three million users last year until people began to realize that 1) they couldn't make any money (too many people chasing too little revenue) and 2) the system encouraged feed spam. Also, as a clone it didn't feel different enough to take people away from FB, which has a lot of value as a free tool for managing your friend and family connections.
Just dont use it. I never have, and guess what? I still keep in touch with friends in family, because, those are the people who categorically won't disappear from your existence.
So far as I am concerned: Facebook is a token economy broker where users pay each other in likes. Just like all the "major" social networks. That is the elegance of them: the users are providing the gratification.
Perhaps people don't value their data because so many business transactions require you to fill out a form with your name, address, phone number, and often more. You can't easily travel without doing that at every hotel you stay at. If you've become used to handing it out for free, it's a bit weird to say that Facebook alone should pay for it.
[+] [-] austenallred|10 years ago|reply
What makes Facebook (and other platforms that use your personal data) valuable is that they have both information about you and a place where they can show you ads. These platforms are not, contrary to popular belief, trying to "sell" your information. They're allowing advertisers to use the platform to display ads to you based on that information. The data is a means to an end, which is showing you relevant ads.
If everyone stopped using Facebook tomorrow, the value of all the information Facebook has gathered would be negligible. The real reason Facebook is worth $X Billion is because a significant portion of the population of the world logs in to use same product every day.
In other words, your attention is the thing that is valuable. Your data just lets advertisers be really efficient in how they pay for your attention.
[+] [-] pdeuchler|10 years ago|reply
Facebook has years and billions of data points on human interaction between friends, lovers, acquaintances, and enemies. Facebook can determine your lifestyle, sexual orientation, socio economic status, and whether or not you're married just from your friend list. Facebook has one of the largest sources of demographic information on the planet, and each of those demographics has told facebook exactly what their hopes, dreams, interests, and fears are.
This is an absolutely ridiculous line of reasoning that willfully ignores the fact that knowledge, and more importantly knowledge about you, is almost pure power. By this same logic Gmail is only worth money because they have a tiny bar above your inbox that people look at, as opposed to having an enormous machine learning corpus of people's intimate communications.
If anything, the simple fact that algorithmic traders are using Facebook's open graph data to find an edge on the stock market is blatant proof that the real money is in the data.
>>> If everyone stopped using Facebook tomorrow, the value of all the information Facebook has gathered would be negligible.
Just like if everyone stopped using the internet today all the information the NSA has gathered would be negligible, right?
[+] [-] williamcotton|10 years ago|reply
I dunno what kind of accounting they're doing at Facebook, but with their current approach of having advertising indirectly subsidizing users, there is no price discovery mechanism. Right now there's no way to price how much a user is worth and how much they actually cost, which seems like a very strange way to run a business.
This type of accounting, where the content itself is given a cost and a value, would mean it we're finally treating what people publish as intellectual property instead of the "user being the product".
---
Edit, to expand on perhaps the advertisers directly subsidized individual users at the time of publication:
Ah, I think you're assuming that I'm saying they should go to a completely paid-for-in-cash-by-users model... which I'm not! I'm just saying that if they flipped the model, and covered the operations costs directly from users, that the books would make more sense. This would make the accounting significantly more complex, so I wasn't making an argument for simplicity, rather as much detail and accuracy as possible! This information can be later analyzed and acted upon in simple ways. This doesn't mean that there can't be a free to use service on top of a model like this. It just means that advertisers are literally paying on behalf of users for hosting, distribution and other operating costs. This would mean that there wouldn't be advertisements on the read-side, in the "stream", rather on the write-side, when publishing... like with sponsored posts... Like, I personally choose to make my post sponsored by the Buffalo Bills because I love giving my money to the Buffalo Bills and the NFL (which I really do). Or maybe some low-rent ads make you watch a 20 second video before paying for you to upload 200 photos from your phone, but at least you don't have to associate yourself with them. We're smart enough to create the kinds of incentive structures that have made intellectual property function in a market economy for hundreds of years, we just need to revisit some deep fundamentals about how we buy and sell information. It'll work out better for everyone. Facebook could take a percentage of the business for having created the market that introduced the advertisers to the authors. The authors are now free to do business as they please, directly covering their own costs or choosing to have them subsidized. The advertisers can establish better relationships with the authors, essentially treating them like business partners.
[+] [-] DevX101|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j03m1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jebblue|10 years ago|reply
It is valuable to the company you're giving it to since they get paid by the advertising. They also get money from their partners who we so graciously agree to allow them to "share" it with which happens to be for profit for them.
>> The data is a means to an end, which is showing you relevant ads. >> If everyone stopped using Facebook tomorrow, the value of all the information Facebook has gathered would be negligible.
They can still sell your information to whomever they want which means even in your scenario they would still be making tons of money, I'm guessing here, hundreds of millions IMHO. So your arguments are not correct.
[+] [-] wahsd|10 years ago|reply
I relish seeing the day that Facebook is jettisoned for a system of distributed and individual ownership of profiles and data, like the internet should be. Humanity strayed at some point when the nefarious actors like Zuckerberg and his predecessors came in and started stealing your data, stealing your person, removing the information from you that your liberty and freedom is built on. You are not a free person when you are on the internet, your person is being smeared and skimmed everywhere you go and things against your choosing or even awareness are being done to your person and identity by people and for reasons you did not authorize. That's not liberty, that's not freedom.
[+] [-] Yhippa|10 years ago|reply
These are some things that you get in exchange for giving up your information:
I think the average person does get a lot in exchange. Look at all of the other social networks that tried to solve this in the past and failed. I don't see any legitimate alternatives.[+] [-] Zelphyr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spooky23|10 years ago|reply
It sucks though when you miss things that you would have heard on there. For example, I found out too late that somebody whom I was good friends with had a family member pass away. They didn't do an obituary, and folks that I talk to regularly IRL didn't mention it, because they figured I saw it on Facebook!
[+] [-] angry-hacker|10 years ago|reply
This doesn't work for long time already. If you have liked something, you rarely see the updates anymore unless the page owners pay for Facebook. It's called Boosting now. Really sucks for small companies or communities, unless you pay - your page is dead.
For me personally, Event management is the only thing it keeps me on Facebook. Part of it's success if of course because everyone is on Facebook, which makes it easy. But again, if you're a small Facebook page owner and want to invite your loyal fans to your own event you created under your page - Good luck with inviting them, you can't - need you pay again.
[+] [-] api|10 years ago|reply
I predict failure on a lot of that. The value provided is not sufficient to justify the cost alone, and then on top of that you add privacy concerns. That means I'm paying for a net negative.
[+] [-] soylentcola|10 years ago|reply
Others have come up with legit alternatives and doubtless more would try if not for the fact that their biggest asset is lack of interoperability or common protocol. They managed to get just about everyone, techie and non-techie, to sign up and a lot of those people just won't pull up stakes to move to another platform as long as the rest of their "contacts" are using Facebook.
When compared to other communication services that are often hosted by third party companies (webmail is the easiest example) there's really just no way to use something else without still using Facebook in addition. It's not like switching to Gmail or Hotmail because you got tired of your old @aol.com account. In that case you can use any competitor and still communicate with people regardless of whether they switch or ever use the same service as you.
But with Facebook, I can't just start using Google+ or some other service to keep up with friends and family unless they all switch over as well. Or rather, I can switch over but I still need to use Facebook in addition. Same would go for another service even if it was built on a common protocol.
That's the main problem I have with Facebook (or any other service that uses the same model). It's not that I can't find or build something that works better for me. It's that it doesn't matter unless everyone does the same and that simply isn't very likely right now or in the near future.
[+] [-] amirmc|10 years ago|reply
FB has a network effect, which a a major reason all those products/services get used. However, it's not really fair to imply that FB is 'succeeding' at all the things you listed. If it were, then there'd be little talk of existential threat from things like Instagram/Whatsapp etc...
[+] [-] zhanwei|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuschku|10 years ago|reply
At least for shadow profiles Facebook should pay.
[+] [-] thomasz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a8da6b0c91d|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmanser|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kdamken|10 years ago|reply
People do get things out of facebook. Why else would they be on it all the time, checking it at least a couple times a day?
[+] [-] Zelphyr|10 years ago|reply
1: Watching my wife peruse FB but I suspect she is an example of a typical user.
2: I'll grant that worthless diversions have their place when used sparingly. But neither FB nor TV are used sparingly by most people unfortunately.
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|10 years ago|reply
(Incidentally, privacy badger is a pretty nice plugin.)
[+] [-] whyenot|10 years ago|reply
Also I think this article over-values personal information in a world where your local supermarket, Amazon, ad networks, the government, etc. already know so much about us. In that context, you aren't giving up that much additional privacy by also sharing with Facebook -- the price you are paying may not be that great.
[+] [-] SOLAR_FIELDS|10 years ago|reply
My coworker (I do not have facebook) had companies that had scanned his badge show up on his Facebook advertisement feed the next day.
To me, this was the real eye opener. Facebook doesn't just sell to advertisers the promise of groups of users. They can offer to sell to you, specifically, by name if they want to.
[+] [-] netcan|10 years ago|reply
Most likely, your friend was targeted for advertising using Facebook's custom audiences. FB let advertisers upload a list of email addresses or Facebook IDs to show ads to.
Personally, I consider this much further on the creepy scale than it is on the genuinely worrisome scale, more creepy than harmful. It's pretty creepy though, so.. relativity.
[+] [-] hellweaver666|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgrahamc|10 years ago|reply
More precisely, she wants the company to offer a cash option (about twenty cents a month, she calculates) for people who value their privacy, but also want a rough idea of what their friends’ children look like.
They could just email with their friends. It's unclear to me, at least, that a 'feed' of data about people I know is an important service. Clearly, I must be an outlier given the number of people I see looking at Facebook every day.
[+] [-] dhimes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hiou|10 years ago|reply
Much like the agriculture industry, tech companies that deal in user data use the shield of trade secrets, NDAs, lobbying etc to hide their actions from the public as they all know that if they general public knew what they were truly doing, they would have a much more difficult choice when deciding upon using that service.
It's not that users don't care or think they are getting a good value for their information, it's that users have so little information about how it is being used.
[+] [-] eck|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kelukelugames|10 years ago|reply
"Ehhhhhh? Why am I worth $76 to them?"
[+] [-] charlesray|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zelphyr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lachesisdecima|10 years ago|reply
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528866/researchers-test...
each piece of data is worth about $2. Now, simple maths would tell any company that making money off that data is a lot more profitable than collecting $0.20. Also, how many people would actually want to enrol in such a premium service? It would not be every person that uses Facebook, for sure. Plus, selling off the data is lot easier than soliciting people to buy their premium product (people give them the licence to do so through the ToS).
[+] [-] kelukelugames|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|10 years ago|reply
I've tried multiple endpoints to do so (for data analytics purposes) and they have all failed. The only way to get data on a person is for them to opt into granting the necessary permissions for the app.
[+] [-] kuschku|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comrh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tuberry|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sparkzilla|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] de1978st|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patientfrog|10 years ago|reply
In exchange we give facebook our data and usage patterns and the right to put targeted ads in our feed.
[+] [-] zamalek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gabea|10 years ago|reply
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/16/the-econo...
[+] [-] skybrian|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heapcity|10 years ago|reply