I think it’s interesting that so many people see the danger in a Twitter “mob” effectively running Kiwifarms off the public, visible internet, without recognising that Kiwifarms themselves were a mob, with the precise goal of running people (including the recently targeted streamer) off the public visible internet too. The tactics were different, but the goal is effectively the same.
The key differences are Kiwifarms is targeting individuals personally. And that they’re doing it kind of randomly, for the lulz. Whereas their main opponents here are targeting a company/community, and acting in self-defence.
This whole thing is kinda fascinating, if not extremely scary. After learning about the situation from the last couple threads here and going down the rabbit hole of sources, the future of the internet seems pretty sad... If cloudflare doesn't reinstate the website after dealing with said immediate danger they claimed was the reason to remove its protection it just shows how hard you can shut someone down by just twitter outrage.
If the threat really was so dire, and if there really was something of the sort sure i can see allowing the obvious DDOS in the background go thru and take the website down. But not reinstating it after the time they were claiming to buy by doing it was already bought it means if you scream loud enough on twitter, even while having an obvious army of arsonists behind you, the firefighters will just stop serving said target.
Sure, cloudflare is a private company and all that, nobody questions it, but it doesn't make it any less unsettling.
Real principled stance there from their CEO - 3 days to totally flip-flop? I mean, if your stance is we will ban content we arbitrarily find bad then just state it as such. Put into your agreement terms precisely what is and isn’t allowed. Be consistent. This “conflicted” act makes them look weak and of questionable leadership.
Either take a principled stance on speech or put into your terms how you censor speech.
The thing is, it's hard to feel bad for kiwifarms. They seem to be one of the worst sites there are. But freedom of speech/expression/opinions aren't about defending those who speech/expression/opinions you like but all of them.
Personally, I think the site being shutdown is a good thing. But it's hard to look at the fact a few corporations can remove a website from the internet and think this is good for a free and open society.
3 people are dead because of that site. What they were doing was a crime. Criminal activity is not is not protected free speech. That's like arguing carding and SIM swapping sites are just expressing their right to free speech and should be protected.
I treat these sites as cannaries. As long as they exist I can be confident that censorship isn't too bad, as they start to get shut down I start to worry. First the came for the X and I was not an X etc etc...
> But freedom of speech/expression/opinions aren't about defending those who speech/expression/opinions you like but all of them.
The fallacy of tolerance. This isn’t about supporting or not supporting a certain ideology, it’s about perpetuating real world violence. I don’t know and don’t care if kiwifarms is “liberal” or “conservative”. What I do know is they’re terrorizing and perpetuating violence upon people in the real world and there’s just no place for that. That’s beyond a philosophical discussion about freedom of speech.
Kiwifarms is a downgrade from the others aka its already a slippery slope. Cloudflare and DDOS-Guard are known to protect booters.
So, they can in effect decide who is allowed online and who will be DDOS'ed offline by services protected by them.
The more website use them, the more power they have to abuse and they are already going down the slippery slope..... Soon even countries will have to decide if Cloudflare and DDOS-Guard are national security risks for protecting the DDOS-for-Hire industry that helps fund botnets (The resources for that industry provides would likely have helped Russia in their DDOS attacks against Ukraine) and if arrest warrents needs to be issued for their leadership.
> But freedom of speech/expression/opinions aren't about defending those who speech/expression/opinions you like but all of them.
Freedom of Speech is not absolute.[1] There are limitations, and it sounds like KiwiFarms members crossed that line many, many times without KiwiFarms doing anything about it.
But more importantly, CloudFlare is not a government entity. There’s no First Amendment right to speak on social media, because free speech is a right guaranteed against government censorship. Though in an astounding overreach, courts have declared the Internet a "Free Speech Zone," (whatever that means), courts have also ruled that platforms have a First Amendment right to ban those they wish to ban.
So the outrage here is really about the long-standing Constitutional and case law limitations on Freedom of Speech and not about anything CloudFlare did in exercising their First Amendment right to dissociate from KiwiFarms and its members.
> But freedom of speech/expression/opinions aren't about defending those who speech/expression/opinions you like but all of them.
What if the freedom of speech you are defending is impeding on the right of others to speak freely?
While I agree with the sentiment, that we have to be especially observant how we treat the freedoms of the people whose opinions we dislike, I don't think just defending those and forgetting about the grand picture is in great service of freedom of speech as it stands.
Maybe this is my liberal (?) European bias, but I don't think for example there is much value in definding some extremist political group that goes after some other people whose opinion they don't like. In the worst case, you are defending a group who has a huge chilling effect on the free speech of the other group, by making them afraid of speaking publicly about their cause.
KF is essentially a deniable harassment vector (ie they say 'we don't condone harassment, so please don't harass Random Person* who lives at 123 Name Street and whose phone # is 212-555-1212 and whose email is... (etc)).'
Random Person is typically some very minor e-celeb or individual that finds themselves in the news, as opposed to an accountable official or someone credibly accused of a serious crime.
The point of such harassment is to drive Random Person off the internet and/or out of public life, so arguably it's just censorship-by-intimidation. I can't help noticing that the people who complain about DDOS being internet mobs seem indifferent to the fact that KF is itself an internet mob, and I'd be pretty surprised if most KF members haven't done their own share of raids, DDOS attacks etc.
I personally think DDOS and forum raids are both a part of internet culture, and pretty civilized compared to in-person harassment, swatting etc., and don't agree that everything should be turned into a police/legal matter given the various downsides of that.
Kiwifarms looks like it is essentially a technical evolution of the tabloid. Tabloid media has been doxxing people and saying really terrible things about them forever. It's hard to feel sympathetic for people like tabloid media, but tabloid media still has a place in society.
I mean, what are your alternatives? Should the government legislate as to which clients companies should accept and which they shouldn’t? Even if the client is unprofitable?
Should the government itself offer these services?
Yes, the internet is very centralised these days. The question is what you would find acceptable to change it.
> But freedom of speech/expression/opinions aren't about defending those who speech/expression/opinions you like but all of them.
This is not true at all, and educating yourself on the matter is trivial. "Free speech absolutism" is a very niche, unpopular, and unrealistic (some forms of speech ultimately limit other's speech, e.g. the dead don't speak) form of free speech.
It's not hard to feel bad for anyone getting censored/booted off the Internet. I see that "Gossithedog" lives in England, which - I reckon - makes it impossible for him to understand the value of free speech. The US is one of few countries on the planet where "freedom of speech" is a protected right (a list that doesn't include England).
We're collectively worse off when the pitchforks come out and the mob allowed to erode our hard-earned freedoms. It doesn't matter if it's Kiwi Farms or someone else, capitulating to the demands of the mob is a slippery slope that doesn't lead to progress.
No. You're absolutely wrong here. The issue isn't that "it's hard to look at the fact a few corporations can remove a website from the internet" - that's a dog whistle to try to say Cloudflare is a victim.
Let's be clear about a few things:
Either Cloudflare is a utility, and therefore it acts as one and is regulated as one - or they're not.
Whether or not they are a utility, they want everyone to believe they were coerced in to doing something that's horrible - CENSORSHIP.
Non-rhetorically, is termination because of violation of a company's or utility's terms of service censorship? If you use your phone to call people and harass people non-stop, and dozens of people complain to your phone company, and they terminate you, are they censoring you? Or have you violated their TOS?
The problem here is that Cloudflare wants their cake and wants to eat it, too - they want to say their terms of service can be wildly lax when they're acting as a "utility" and they'll DTRT when legally compelled, but there are plenty of examples where they terminate for significantly less than a violation of their TOS, plus plenty of examples of where they don't terminate even when legally compelled.
They claim they don't host by trying to redefine the definition of hosting. They want us to believe they don't host, and that providing material services which facilitate presence on the Internet is neither hosting nor should in any way be their responsibility.
Their TOS for proxy services is bullshit, because they're basically saying that someone REALLY has to do some criminal shit before Cloudflare will take action. They want a district attorney to convene a jury to indict a John / Jane Doe before they'll do anything. In other words, they want to be a safe haven for any illegal activity that isn't serious enough to warrant that a district attorney to take direct action.
What happens if they become the monopoly they want to become and they're a safe haven for 90% of the illegal activity out there? They make tons of $. You can't block bad sites by IP because they serve all the legitimate sites from the same IPs as the illegal sites. You can't block bad sites by DNS, if they have their way, because DNS-over-https has taken control of that out of our hands.
So any claim of "censorship" is bullshit. Cloudflare wants to be the victim here, when it's their own attempts at manipulating the market that have brought us to where we are.
This has all the hallmarks of an overreaction to a moral panic, not a rational response to the actual evidence. People become incredibly sure of their positions and don't even want to look at the evidence, but to be honest, the evidence doesn't matter, because people won't be persuaded by it anyway given the stress level and strong emotions.
Is the internet a better place without this site? Who knows. But that's not the question we should ask when making censorship decisions, because these panics invariably exaggerate the immediate harms of keeping a site and minimize the longer-term harms of terminating it.
Freedom of speech, famously, doesn't give you the right to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater [1]. It also doesn't give you the right to target, stalk, and harass people.
The question to me isn't why did it take Cloudflare so long to make this decision. The question is why hadn't governments stepped in and _forced_ Cloudflare to take action, given the illegal activity taking place on the site.
How else would the website be removed? Should Cloudflare have hosted a vote or something? I think they took it down because millions of people wanted them to, not on a whim.
I personally have never seen any content on Kiwifarms that would lead to statements as we saw the other day from Cloudflare. It is a place where people say some horrible stuff, but I think 4chan is worse (including CSAM) and they are protected by Cloudflare as far as I know.
I don't know much about the people who post there, other than that they say some nasty things. I have also seen such content on Facebook and Twitter - nastier content, in greater volume, with a larger audience.
I have found comments about people on kiwifarms that have been moderated out of other sites (not death threats or harassment, but factual information), in that regard it has been somewhat useful.
They host (or shield) a bunch of high-profile piracy sites (the largest repacker for example) and hosted Parler after it was kicked from AWS. I've never heard of anyone being suspended by DG. Great achievement, that surely wasn't easy.
It is quite surprising that they took action. I wonder if this will negatively affect DDoS-Guard's reputation as the first choice for hosting illegal content.
Something I'm curious about in this whole thing: who is DDoSing kiwifarms? Most people find their content reprehensible but does that usually translate into people DDoSing something?
Wouldn't surprise me. People used to DDoS to knock competitor IRC networks offline for laughs, never mind something people believe in.
It helps it's the easiest way to do damage to a website and you just can pay someone to do the tech part of the hack. A DDoS attack is as easy to buy as the web hosting you're attacking now, back in the day you had to set up the botnet yourself
People pay for DDOS for the stupidest reasons, one of my favorite game servers have been under constant DDOS attack because they changed their discord icon in support of Ukraine.
Yes. Why do you think KF's enemies went after Cloudflare and not some other aspect of their operation - it's because they want to destroy the site totally and that means DDoSing it off the internet.
In previous years, the admin noticed a repeated monthly pattern of DDOS attacks, and believed that it was due to the cycle of people getting welfare/disability and spending as much as they could each month on rent-a-DDOS services.
Is this a good thing? That internet vigilantes are able to decide what can stay and what must go? If Kiwifarms was a hive for so much illegal activity then certainly the FBI must have heard of them by now and I'd expect them along with the courts to be the arbiters of justice rather than some angry people on Twitter.
I'm not celebrating because I'm not short sighted. We can all see where this is going.
The point is that if you're using your speech to silence people, not by disproving their arguments but through terror and the destruction of their reputation and social network, when you silence people by lying about them, your speech is a threat to free speech.
By protecting sites whose purpose is to silence particular individuals through lies and threats you are reducing free speech. This is a case where you have to choose which speech to protect. They are in conflict. And the site you might defend is not the one making a good faith use of the freedom you wish to protect.
Supporting the removal of a problematic site (as though that would do the trick) at the expense of setting a bad president is a profoundly oblique way to go about things.
A few years ago people urged CDNs and ISPs to drop the Daily Caller, then it was Parler, and for numerous times it was 4/8chan. At what point do we admit that the solution to extremism isn’t in blocking sites where this activity collaborates?
This is a cultural problem that can’t be fixed with the hammer of authoritarianism.
Is it too early to say the internet is done for because it's looking that way to me. keffals has given the government the recipe to kill off any website they want gone. I'm hearing that keffals creatures are now attacking TOR to get them to drop kiwi too.
This isn't going to stop, 4chan is definitely next then every other site that isn't mainstream.
The problem with salem witch trials du jour so fervently pushed by certain groups of people is closing to its demise with every case like this. The advantage of emotionally immature people (regardless of their actual age) having too much time on their hands forcing their narrative and banning any discourse that they don't like will eventually cease when the majority of people will realize that they are, well, in a majority, and it's time to put stop to this madness.
Cloudflare or any other privately owned company doesn't have an obligation to service everyone. They are not violating their free speech, no matter how long you turn it on every side. Kiwi Farms can host their website on any other platform and get any other service they want. No one is forced to service them.
Let's not forget that they have been known to publicise private information of people that ended up with them being swatted. They are a big enable of this behaviour. Not only that, but they have been also involved in three suicides at this point. I don't think any private company wants to associate themselves with such a client.
It’s almost like there are some behaviors we collectively won’t tolerate and if you engage in them people will pull out all the stops to bring you down.
Act like an asshole and you end up getting taken down.
Who could have guessed?
[+] [-] elcamino44|3 years ago|reply
The key differences are Kiwifarms is targeting individuals personally. And that they’re doing it kind of randomly, for the lulz. Whereas their main opponents here are targeting a company/community, and acting in self-defence.
I know who I think is more worthy of protection.
[+] [-] philippejara|3 years ago|reply
This whole thing is kinda fascinating, if not extremely scary. After learning about the situation from the last couple threads here and going down the rabbit hole of sources, the future of the internet seems pretty sad... If cloudflare doesn't reinstate the website after dealing with said immediate danger they claimed was the reason to remove its protection it just shows how hard you can shut someone down by just twitter outrage.
If the threat really was so dire, and if there really was something of the sort sure i can see allowing the obvious DDOS in the background go thru and take the website down. But not reinstating it after the time they were claiming to buy by doing it was already bought it means if you scream loud enough on twitter, even while having an obvious army of arsonists behind you, the firefighters will just stop serving said target.
Sure, cloudflare is a private company and all that, nobody questions it, but it doesn't make it any less unsettling.
[+] [-] nemo44x|3 years ago|reply
Either take a principled stance on speech or put into your terms how you censor speech.
[+] [-] that_guy_iain|3 years ago|reply
Personally, I think the site being shutdown is a good thing. But it's hard to look at the fact a few corporations can remove a website from the internet and think this is good for a free and open society.
[+] [-] weare138|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] concordDance|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tw04|3 years ago|reply
The fallacy of tolerance. This isn’t about supporting or not supporting a certain ideology, it’s about perpetuating real world violence. I don’t know and don’t care if kiwifarms is “liberal” or “conservative”. What I do know is they’re terrorizing and perpetuating violence upon people in the real world and there’s just no place for that. That’s beyond a philosophical discussion about freedom of speech.
[+] [-] worldofmatthew|3 years ago|reply
So, they can in effect decide who is allowed online and who will be DDOS'ed offline by services protected by them.
The more website use them, the more power they have to abuse and they are already going down the slippery slope..... Soon even countries will have to decide if Cloudflare and DDOS-Guard are national security risks for protecting the DDOS-for-Hire industry that helps fund botnets (The resources for that industry provides would likely have helped Russia in their DDOS attacks against Ukraine) and if arrest warrents needs to be issued for their leadership.
[+] [-] Maursault|3 years ago|reply
Freedom of Speech is not absolute.[1] There are limitations, and it sounds like KiwiFarms members crossed that line many, many times without KiwiFarms doing anything about it.
But more importantly, CloudFlare is not a government entity. There’s no First Amendment right to speak on social media, because free speech is a right guaranteed against government censorship. Though in an astounding overreach, courts have declared the Internet a "Free Speech Zone," (whatever that means), courts have also ruled that platforms have a First Amendment right to ban those they wish to ban.
So the outrage here is really about the long-standing Constitutional and case law limitations on Freedom of Speech and not about anything CloudFlare did in exercising their First Amendment right to dissociate from KiwiFarms and its members.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations
[+] [-] atoav|3 years ago|reply
What if the freedom of speech you are defending is impeding on the right of others to speak freely?
While I agree with the sentiment, that we have to be especially observant how we treat the freedoms of the people whose opinions we dislike, I don't think just defending those and forgetting about the grand picture is in great service of freedom of speech as it stands.
Maybe this is my liberal (?) European bias, but I don't think for example there is much value in definding some extremist political group that goes after some other people whose opinion they don't like. In the worst case, you are defending a group who has a huge chilling effect on the free speech of the other group, by making them afraid of speaking publicly about their cause.
[+] [-] ohCh6zos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|3 years ago|reply
Random Person is typically some very minor e-celeb or individual that finds themselves in the news, as opposed to an accountable official or someone credibly accused of a serious crime.
The point of such harassment is to drive Random Person off the internet and/or out of public life, so arguably it's just censorship-by-intimidation. I can't help noticing that the people who complain about DDOS being internet mobs seem indifferent to the fact that KF is itself an internet mob, and I'd be pretty surprised if most KF members haven't done their own share of raids, DDOS attacks etc.
I personally think DDOS and forum raids are both a part of internet culture, and pretty civilized compared to in-person harassment, swatting etc., and don't agree that everything should be turned into a police/legal matter given the various downsides of that.
[+] [-] pclmulqdq|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moomin|3 years ago|reply
Should the government itself offer these services?
Yes, the internet is very centralised these days. The question is what you would find acceptable to change it.
[+] [-] zamalek|3 years ago|reply
This is not true at all, and educating yourself on the matter is trivial. "Free speech absolutism" is a very niche, unpopular, and unrealistic (some forms of speech ultimately limit other's speech, e.g. the dead don't speak) form of free speech.
Spreading this pro-KF propaganda needs to stop.
[+] [-] armitron|3 years ago|reply
We're collectively worse off when the pitchforks come out and the mob allowed to erode our hard-earned freedoms. It doesn't matter if it's Kiwi Farms or someone else, capitulating to the demands of the mob is a slippery slope that doesn't lead to progress.
[+] [-] johnklos|3 years ago|reply
Let's be clear about a few things:
Either Cloudflare is a utility, and therefore it acts as one and is regulated as one - or they're not.
Whether or not they are a utility, they want everyone to believe they were coerced in to doing something that's horrible - CENSORSHIP.
Non-rhetorically, is termination because of violation of a company's or utility's terms of service censorship? If you use your phone to call people and harass people non-stop, and dozens of people complain to your phone company, and they terminate you, are they censoring you? Or have you violated their TOS?
The problem here is that Cloudflare wants their cake and wants to eat it, too - they want to say their terms of service can be wildly lax when they're acting as a "utility" and they'll DTRT when legally compelled, but there are plenty of examples where they terminate for significantly less than a violation of their TOS, plus plenty of examples of where they don't terminate even when legally compelled.
They claim they don't host by trying to redefine the definition of hosting. They want us to believe they don't host, and that providing material services which facilitate presence on the Internet is neither hosting nor should in any way be their responsibility.
Their TOS for proxy services is bullshit, because they're basically saying that someone REALLY has to do some criminal shit before Cloudflare will take action. They want a district attorney to convene a jury to indict a John / Jane Doe before they'll do anything. In other words, they want to be a safe haven for any illegal activity that isn't serious enough to warrant that a district attorney to take direct action.
What happens if they become the monopoly they want to become and they're a safe haven for 90% of the illegal activity out there? They make tons of $. You can't block bad sites by IP because they serve all the legitimate sites from the same IPs as the illegal sites. You can't block bad sites by DNS, if they have their way, because DNS-over-https has taken control of that out of our hands.
So any claim of "censorship" is bullshit. Cloudflare wants to be the victim here, when it's their own attempts at manipulating the market that have brought us to where we are.
[+] [-] dmatech|3 years ago|reply
Is the internet a better place without this site? Who knows. But that's not the question we should ask when making censorship decisions, because these panics invariably exaggerate the immediate harms of keeping a site and minimize the longer-term harms of terminating it.
[+] [-] superb-owl|3 years ago|reply
The question to me isn't why did it take Cloudflare so long to make this decision. The question is why hadn't governments stepped in and _forced_ Cloudflare to take action, given the illegal activity taking place on the site.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
[+] [-] danielfoster|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flumpcakes|3 years ago|reply
I don't know much about the people who post there, other than that they say some nasty things. I have also seen such content on Facebook and Twitter - nastier content, in greater volume, with a larger audience.
I have found comments about people on kiwifarms that have been moderated out of other sites (not death threats or harassment, but factual information), in that regard it has been somewhat useful.
[+] [-] BonoboIO|3 years ago|reply
Yeah, sometimes the Twitter mob comes and cancels someone for no real reason, but this is not the case here.
[+] [-] Krisando|3 years ago|reply
http://uquusqsaaad66cvub4473csdu4uu7ahxou3zqc35fpw5d4ificedz...
(Need TOR browser or Brave)
[+] [-] schleck8|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Borgz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmitri_ignat|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsujamin|3 years ago|reply
(https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1566729178807926785)
[+] [-] maccam912|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corobo|3 years ago|reply
It helps it's the easiest way to do damage to a website and you just can pay someone to do the tech part of the hack. A DDoS attack is as easy to buy as the web hosting you're attacking now, back in the day you had to set up the botnet yourself
[+] [-] jl6|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hamcha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ohCh6zos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] origin_path|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xboxnolifes|3 years ago|reply
It takes literally one disgruntled person to pay $5 to take down most IPs that don't have DDoS protection. Sometimes a free booter is enough.
[+] [-] prvit|3 years ago|reply
If they end up running the site on a server with no DDoS filtering at all, people will probably DoS them because it will be super easy.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] worldofmatthew|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colpabar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boastful_inaba|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reset-password|3 years ago|reply
I'm not celebrating because I'm not short sighted. We can all see where this is going.
[+] [-] Canada|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DFHippie|3 years ago|reply
https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/kiwi-farms-cloudlfare-a...
The point is that if you're using your speech to silence people, not by disproving their arguments but through terror and the destruction of their reputation and social network, when you silence people by lying about them, your speech is a threat to free speech.
By protecting sites whose purpose is to silence particular individuals through lies and threats you are reducing free speech. This is a case where you have to choose which speech to protect. They are in conflict. And the site you might defend is not the one making a good faith use of the freedom you wish to protect.
[+] [-] no-dr-onboard|3 years ago|reply
A few years ago people urged CDNs and ISPs to drop the Daily Caller, then it was Parler, and for numerous times it was 4/8chan. At what point do we admit that the solution to extremism isn’t in blocking sites where this activity collaborates?
This is a cultural problem that can’t be fixed with the hammer of authoritarianism.
[+] [-] deepcyanide|3 years ago|reply
This isn't going to stop, 4chan is definitely next then every other site that isn't mainstream.
[+] [-] tony-allan|3 years ago|reply
But as a thought experiment, would an IPFS based distributed website survive attacks of this nature?
It could be pinned by individual users and gateways and accessed using browser plug-ins.
[1] https://ipfs.tech/
[+] [-] jameslars|3 years ago|reply
"For the time being, I am locking the threads of the most prominent members of the hashtag campaigns against us... I'm tired of hearing about it."
Very "Free Speech" of KF. This is all just public information after all, isn't it?
[+] [-] neonsunset|3 years ago|reply
In other news, http://uquusqsaaad66cvub4473csdu4uu7ahxou3zqc35fpw5d4ificedz... is up.
[+] [-] Febra33|3 years ago|reply
Let's not forget that they have been known to publicise private information of people that ended up with them being swatted. They are a big enable of this behaviour. Not only that, but they have been also involved in three suicides at this point. I don't think any private company wants to associate themselves with such a client.
[+] [-] SinParadise|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] more_corn|3 years ago|reply
Act like an asshole and you end up getting taken down. Who could have guessed?