↓
 
Home » Making Facebook “safe”

Making Facebook “safe”

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter Barry Meislin, who wrote, “Nothing that we didn’t know, but nice to find out that AT LEAST ONE Facebook employee has a conscience.”]

However, it seems to me that tons of Facebook employees have consciences, as do the people at the helm there who set the policy. In fact, they’re loaded with consciences, positively dripping with them. The question is: conscience about what?

The linked article discusses a Facebook whistleblower named Frances Haugen:

“The version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world,” Haugen told 60 Minutes Sunday.

Haugen accused the company of placing profit above the good for the public, despite assurances from Facebook leadership that the company was working to make the platform safe.

I certainly agree that Facebook and other social media companies are helping to tear our societies apart. I’m not sure about ethnic violence around the world, though; it seems to me that was rife long before Facebook existed.

But note that word “safe.” To me that’s a warning bell, a tell of leftism. No platform that allows a free exchange of ideas can be “safe” in the way that the word is commonly used today. So in the name of “safety,” speech is limited. But what speech?

More:

“There were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money,” Haugen said.

In other words, they were acting like capitalists.

Documents revealed that Facebook’s own internal research showed that the company knew some of its products were harming the mental health of some of its users, most notably teen girls.

“Facebook’s own research says, as these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. And it actually makes them use [Instagram] more,” Haugen said.

So that seems to be about the fairly well-known (at least, it’s well-known to those in the therapy field) fact that when anorectics get to compare notes online or elsewhere (including in person, in hospital treatment centers) they often exchange information on how to be better anorectics and get thinner and thinner, as well as learning more effective ways to evade the authorities.

If Facebook bans such discussions, it does so in order to protect minors. To me, that’s a different thing because children are involved. Protecting adults by banning such discussions is much iffier.

And of course it’s not as though Facebook is a small operation, or a personal blog such as this one that features one person with others commenting on the views of that one person. Facebook is a vast vehicle for the exchange of ideas among people with their own pages, and it has enormous reach and power. Facebook and other such platforms started out very committed to openness but have clamped down more and more as time goes on. It sounds as though Haugen would like them to clamp down more.

And of course, to clamp down on the viewpoints that tend to be on the political right:

Haugen, a data scientist with a computer engineering degree and a Harvard MBA, said she took the job at Facebook in order to combat misinformation after losing a friend to online conspiracy theories. But although she admits that the company took some steps to combat misinformation during the 2020 election, many of those policies were only temporary.

Gotta clamp down on that election “misinformation” more and more, so we’ll be “safe.”

There actually is a dilemma here. Protecting children is one thing, but censoring political views on such a vast scale is another. And when Facebook decides what’s “misinformation,” it certainly isn’t unbiased in its application of the standard. We already know that full well, and we know which side will suffer and which will profit.

Comments

Making Facebook “safe” — 60 Comments

  1. Indeed! No-one should be fooled by this so-called “whistleblower” who, like all other leftists, is intent upon criticizing Facebook and the other giants of Big Tech only because they fail to do sufficient censoring of conservatives on their platforms. Despite the well-documented bias from the oligarchs who control social media towards the left and against any and all opposition to the left, completely delusional “progressive ” totalitarians are fully invested in demonizing as “disinformation” or “misinformation” or “extremism” or “conspiracy theories” only such (far likelier true than not)) opinions as constitute a reasoned rebuke to the fabricated false narratives of the MSM and of the ruling class.

  2. One would think that data driven fields like Computer Science would trend neutral politically but experience shows that many of these people are subject to the “silo effect” of technical fields. The participants in that field tend to be ignorant about life in general, sometimes called “the nerd effect” and often such people get into the left’s influence zone where what you would like trumps (so to speak) reality. This individual; seems to be an example. It used to be that Liberal Arts offered a broad view of civilization but those days are long gone.

  3. Frances Haugen wants Facebook to censor the Right more. She’s whistleblowing because Facebook isn’t biased enough.

  4. A friend texted me and asked if FB was down. I checked my phone and said no.
    He said his phone works on FB, but it turns out that his and my browser each cannot link to FB at the moment.

  5. That’s a nice, soft criticism of Facebook, Neo.
    Personally I use no “social” media and urge my family members to do likewise, because they are propaganda vehicles immune under current law to litigation.
    But I am only one person.
    Let us just wait and see the Haugen testimony.

  6. The fact that Facebook is purposely promoting “divisive” and contraversial posts and content because that sort of content generates more “user engagement” (and therefore, more ad revenue) is not at all surprising. It shouldn’t really be a revelation that Facebook is essentially an engine that runs on hate… but it apparently it is.

    As to what can or should be done about this? I hope that people at minimum are at least made aware of the fact that Facebook promotes and benfits from eristic content. I don’t know if this is something that requires the government to get involved. I would hope that people would make better individual choices, like to just not use Facebook so much perhaps.

    The whole “misinformation” issue is sort of a seperate thing. As usual, what progressives really want is a Ministry of Truth to determine what’s permitted to be said and what is “misinformation” that needs to be purged from public discourse. And in a way they sort of already have that, with big Tech actively suppressing stories that reflect badly on Democrats and disproportionately punishing/deplatforming Conservatives for what is deemed to be wrong think. They just want to make it official by maybe creating a government entity that supervises the Social Media companies in their moderation efforts.

  7. What je said. This “whistleblower” has an agenda, and the fact that 60 Minutes featured her is all one really needs to know.

    And yes, in a wonderful “coincidence” FB has been down almost the entire afternoon, and from reports it’s a low probability event that is worldwide; not the local server…… hmmmmm.

  8. Yes, these tech ‘whistle blowers’ are almost always coming from the left.

    The market didn’t much care for this as FB stock was down almost 5% today although this news could be being used as an excuse to sell in a market that is recalibrating away from Big Tech at the moment.

    I have always thought that FB (along with maybe Netflix) was the weakest of the FAANG + MSFT stocks.

  9. Ed Bonderenka,

    It appears, at the very least, that the the DNS entry (entries?) which route to Facebook have been somehow altered.

    It has also been reported – true or not – that FB employee recognition systems are ALSO down so they are unable, so far, to resolve the issue.

    It will be interesting to see if digital forensic specialists just how it was done. Single point of failure?

  11. some leftists complained why the media doesn’t treat biden as well as they did with Trump. pray for these tormented souls.
    “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. For if you love only those who love you, what reward is there in that?” – Jesus

  13. Has anyone else on this thread seen The Social Dilemma? It’s a 2020 documentary about the ways in which social media becomes an addiction for many people; manipulates people’s opinions; spreads disinformation; and has a number of negative effects on mental health– especially the mental health of teenagers. The doc features interviews with former employees, executives, and other professionals from top tech companies and social media platforms, including Facebook as well as Twitter, Instagram, and all the other major players. These interviews are presented alongside scripted dramatizations of a teenager’s social media addiction.

    I came away from the documentary with a renewed determination to avoid the use of all social media. I’ve never had a Facebook or Twitter account, so I can’t say I miss them, but I’ve got more reasons than ever to stay away from them.

    Anyway, here’s a link to the full documentary:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mqR_e2seeM&ab_channel=Netflix

  15. neo,

    My hero!

    I have a twitter account I have never used but follow some sports writers and that is it.

    Social media may be the most destructive invention of the last fifty years.

  16. If this Facebook outage is DNS related it could take days before the domain servers get propagated worldwide and up running again.

    Strange it happens the day after the whistle blower comes forward.

  17. neo (4:37 pm) said, “I use no social media whatsoever.”

    With all the respect in the world, I’d be interested in a brief discussion of how thenewneo-dot-com is not a form of social media.

    Pro: We generally don’t get into personal lives, although in passing, we’ve noted deaths in the family, illnesses and the like at least sporadically. We don’t do pictures of grandchildren or of fiancés, or of vacations or parties — but those are not what makes social media so toxic.

    Con: We do discuss political issues, and we have been known to gang up on selected visitors that voice unpopular views, unpopular at neo’s place, anyway. (Hey, where’s our buddy Montage these-a-days?) And we’ve veered off into other areas of interest aside from the political.

    So, again: how are we *not* a form of social media? Any takers?

  18. Is the problem the bias in social media or the bias in the search engines? Isn’t that where the real problem lies? We can live without social media as neo does, but life is becoming difficult without content neutral search engines.

  19. Ed Bonderenka —

    FB comes up on my phone but only shows content that loaded when I looked at it yesterday, so in the local cache. Clicking through to a post with comments that I haven’t yet read times out.

  20. neo,
    Nor do I. I email people I know if I have something to say to or share with them, but most people would find my life so boring, they would fall asleep.

  21. M J R:

    This is a personal blog with no other people posting entries on it. I am completely in charge of it. I designed it and I control whether there is a comment section or not. I can ban people or limit them in any way I see fit. I choose to make it “social” by having a comments section, but that is the only social thing about it. I do not hold myself out to be a common carrier or a platform for anyone else.

    That is completely unlike social media, which is non-hierarchical in terms of those who have pages or accounts there, who are all equal (except in terms of traffic or followers).

  22. Eva Marie:

    I don’t know if “DuckDuckGo” is completely neutral, but it certainly is neutral compared to Google.

  23. Yeah, if this site is defined as ‘social media’ then so are the NYT or Fox News websites.

    Also I’m assuming that neo doesn’t doesn’t have some algo targeting all of her readers and feeding them the content they like.

  24. Eva Marie–

    I’m with Neo on this point– I use DuckDuckGo as my search engine– it’s much better than Google.

  25. neo (5:11 pm), explanation accepted. “hierarchical/non-hierarchical” is key for me.

    Griffin (5:14 pm), yep.

  26. I’m an unapologetic user of FB. It has been invaluable for connecting with high school and college friends long since lost, but now reconnected. I also am interested in the few lib leaning friends and their posts. Interestingly, those are the one who make all the political posts.

    One has to be careful to set options to friends only, and also limit friends to people one knows personally. Also never click on any ads, and the obvious click bait posts from unknown sources and groups.

  27. Griffin:

    That’s pretty funny – although I do like to at least try to write posts that are of interest to my readers. But no algorithm. And the posts have to interest me as well, or they’d be too tedious to write much less read.

  28. Acting as propaganda organs of the State is treason.

    “what progressives really want is a Ministry of Truth” Nonapod

    The irony is that should they obtain their desire, it would be their undoing.

  30. The “whistleblower” “…lost a friend to online conspiracy theories…” and therefore began her crusade.

    Cue ominous music.

    What does that even mean?

    Does that mean she had a friend who became skeptical about whether “climate change” is everything it’s cracked up to be? Or perhaps thought that there might be “good people” who didn’t think that statues of Robert E. Lee should be destroyed and might want to talk about it? Or doubted that Donald Trump was a Russian agent?

  34. Documents revealed that Facebook’s own internal research showed that the company knew some of its products were harming the mental health of some of its users, most notably teen girls.

    “Facebook’s own research says, as these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. And it actually makes them use [Instagram] more,” Haugen said.

    So that seems to be about the fairly well-known (at least, it’s well-known to those in the therapy field) fact that when anorectics get to compare notes online or elsewhere (including in person, in hospital treatment centers) they often exchange information on how to be better anorectics and get thinner and thinner, as well as learning more effective ways to evade the authorities.

    Did the article stipulate that these girls were aneorectics with pre-existing conditions?

    Because … if not, then …

  35. She has a very slick public relations team supporting her efforts, and they include former Obama Administration team members with legal and media expertise. Do not trust this ‘whistleblower’. She is not a brave woman alone in a hostile world, her whistle has a symphony supporting its tune. It is a slick sh*t-show, designed to prod Facebook to increasing its censorship of the ‘new face of terrorism’. In other words – you.

  36. I got off FB way back in 2012 or so. Then six months into shutdown (CA) I rejoined out of boredom and wanting to reconnect with others.

    I only post personal pictures and that is all I see from others I’m connected to: kids, travel, food. I don’t associate with anyone left of center, and my small conservative circle doesn’t post politics. Post shut-in I’m only on there twice a month to see nephew pics and such. As a family keep-up tool it works If you limit it this way.

  37. Ah, well. Looks like I shoulda kept on reading.
    I stopped at the “tearing our societies apart” part…which is true insofar as platforms such as FB and Twitter, not intentionally, perhaps—at least at first—but effectively encourage and promote tribalism, division, factionalism (Madison’s bane) and overall collective hysteria.

    So that I assumed the “whistleblower”‘s claim was that FB is far too powerful (it is) and that it is using that power (at least all too often) in a negative way (it is).

    And that its power should be diminished (when it breaks laws, it should)…though in ways that SHE desires, i.e., suppression of information SHE finds harmful (IOW with which SHE disagrees).

    Conclusion? I guess not every “conscience” is created equal….

    (Conclusion #2: Read till the end….)

    To be sure, FB (like Twitter) is only a tool that can be used for good or for bad. Like most everything else: people can use it for good purposes or they can abuse it, pervert it, wreck it.

    Unfortunately, its founders/inventers/owners—perhaps formerly intending their tool to promote “the good”—have decided to pervert it for their own perceived “altruistic” ends.

    Seems said “whistleblower” doesn’t believe they’ve perverted it enough….

  40. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter: All a complete waste of time.

    Zuckerberg and Dorsey are public enemies.

  41. }}} It shouldn’t really be a revelation that Facebook is essentially an engine that runs on hate… but it apparently it is.

    I would assert that it is essentially more PostModern Liberalism that runs on hate.

    FB is just a vehicle.

    You look at someplace that Cons have fled to because of censorship (such as MeWe), there’s a lot more light and a lot less heat, esp. if you avoid CT types and the ultra-religious, who can also be found in some such places.

  42. How can one claim to not use any social media at all while writing, reading, and commenting on a blog? This blog is social in nature and media by necessity. Blogs are social media.

  43. My theory is that this whistleblower is doing battlespace prep for FB being able to ignore/suppress revelations about the Clinton Campaign, Perkins-Coie, DNC, et al which will be exposed by Durham before the 2022 midterms. Of course FB is perfectly capable of suppressing pro-conservative news as it is, but FB is going to have to outdo itself if Durham follows the money. They will need an ironclad excuse to cover their eyes, ears, and lips, and this lady is out to set the foundation for it.

  44. @Indigo Red:Blogs are social media.

    Blogs predate Facebook by years. Everyone agrees that Facebook is not a blog and not the same thing as a blog. You want to play “well akshually” word games, that’s fine Humpty Dumpty, but things like Facebook are very different from blogs in ways we’re all aware of and most people label that difference by saying “Social media”. Some of the important differences:

    Blogs are controlled by individuals or small groups of individuals who decide on content, advertising, commenting policy, etc. Facebook is run by algorithms and moderators who make these decisions whenever they wish, however they wish.

    A blog can move from one platform to another and keep its basic structure and functionality. A Facebook page cannot leave Facebook without losing the basics of what makes it a Facebook page.

    A blog reader or commenter does not need anything but the permission of the blog owner to read the blog or comment on it.

    People who do more with Facebook can no doubt list more but the upshot is that anything hosted on Facebook can be controlled and managed by Facebook, as can its audience, in a way that does not happen with blogs. When you have something on Facebook the corporation is a partner in a way that WordPress isn’t a partner in your blog (oh they can kick you off, and you can put up your blog somewhere else). You can write your own html code and have your own server for a blog, you can’t have your own Facebook. The network of walled-garden users and the corporate partnership is an inherent difference.

  45. If you want access to Google’s results, but don’t want to use Google, try Startpage dot com. It anonymizes your query before sending it to Google.

  46. “… battlespace prep for FB being able to ignore/suppress revelations about the Clinton Campaign, Perkins-Coie, DNC, et al”

    Before “et al” I should have added “Joe’s Final Dementia Dive”! Maybe even put it first!
    My basic premise is that circumstances will cause FB to want to claim it is regulated, or at least plausibly deny that it is un-regulated. Before the midterms things are going to get so ugly that FB is going to find it too self-incriminating to selectively ignore Democrat disasters like they do now.

    See, they know they are going to get reined-in, and they would rather it be by the Democrats than by the vengeful Republicans that may follow them!

  47. Another difference between Facebook and blogs. If I have a blog and wish to stop blogging then I stop. If I’m a commenter at a blog and don’t wish to comment any more then I stop. Facebook, in my experience, makes it a long involved process to quit and takedown your page.

  48. }}} We do discuss political issues, and we have been known to gang up on selected visitors that voice unpopular views, unpopular at neo’s place, anyway. (Hey, where’s our buddy Montage these-a-days?) And we’ve veered off into other areas of interest aside from the political.

    I would assert that most of the time, people with non-conservative opinions around here (particularly “liberal” opinions) are generally either idiots and/or trolls who post blatantly provocative absurdities as though they were expecting to be taken seriously, not people with actually effective arguments in support of those positions.

    An obvious one common over on (and familiar to the overlapping members here) Chicago Boyz posts under the name “PenGun”. Don’t recall anyone like that here, lately, but such derision, if heaped on them, is well-deserved. They do not earn respect by having contrary opinions which they cannot effectively defend.

    I think it is quite possible to have, and express, contrarian opinions here, but you do need to be able to make a case for them. I think many, if not most, here, tend to be anti-abortion, while I take a much more middling approach, as I do not believe it is possible to defend anti-abortion without a referral to religion, and as such it should not be Law. It is also a reasonable assertion that at least 1/3rd or more of the populace is pro-Choice. And again, with that much opposition, it should not be a matter of Law.

    Things which are made Law should match a general agreement of the people, ca. 90% or more supporting, which is one reason for the historical “Jury Nullification” standard, as that produces much the same defacto metric of support.

    The correct venue for discouraging abortion should, therefore, be a strong application of social opprobrium, not legal remedies.

    I support a legal-but-socially-discouraged position on such, at least with regards to current general standards (1st trimester). After that point, the fetus has independent brainwaves from the mother, and then can be argued from a rational, non-religious PoV as having its own mind and be potentially capable of independent thought based on the direct evidence.

  49. Rather interesting development here:
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2021/10/05/whistleblower-to-congress-facebook-knows-china-and-iran-using-are-using-it-to-commit-espionage-n1521851

    IOW, by the time this thing is over, does this “Biden” power play means that “he” will have Zuck by the short and curlies? (Not that Zuck wasn’t cooperative—at least most of the time—in the past…but now, will he have to kiss any smidgeon of independence good-bye….)

    Or is this mere distraction to “demonstrate” that “Biden” is really pro-USA (and not pro-China and pro-Mullah).

    Wheels within wheels within wheels… Stay tuned….

  50. Indigo Red:

    That’s not what the term “social media” has come to mean. It is not just an amalgam of “social” and “media.” By your definition, newspapers are social media, especially if they publish letters to the editor. But they’re not. “Social media” has come to be a phrase with a fairly specific definition, which has already been explained in this comment thread.

  52. Now then, this is starting to take a familiar shape. A precisely-timed appearance of a passionate whistleblower, before an indulgent committee. The witness is emotional but steadfast. But to an experienced viewer, it all looks very much like a staged production. The witness has too much support, and it is too professional. Every aspect of the production is well-designed. There is a rehearsed quality to it. How did all those documents find their way so precisely to the WSJ, how did the witness manage to organize appearing on a TV news magazine, just before testifying to Congress, how did she manage to craft a message, pre-release it, get the word out so slickly?

    Does this production remind anybody of Christine Blassey Ford, just a little bit? Does the witness look just a little too perfect, a little too rehearsed, perhaps slightly over-coached? Is she surrounded by experienced DC professionals that she wouldn’t normally be with?

    Are these little dramatic one-act pageant plays in the new Democratic playbook as a winning strategy for getting the Court of Public Opinion lined up, and then hitting the legislators? Sure looks like it to me.

  53. From the Twitterverse – which definitely IS social media (or maybe social-media, for Indigo Red’s benefit):
    https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1445437916730335234
    Matt Walsh: The “Facebook Whistleblower” is one of the most transparent political ploys we’ve seen in a long time. She’s a Democrat operative whose primary beef with Facebook is that they dont censor right wing content enough. She hasnt revealed any actual secrets about the company. A farce.

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1445438141775683584
    Jack Posobiec: Jen Psaki’s PR firm is representing the Facebook whistleblower

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1445456036098236418
    Jack Posobiec: Frances Haugen was part of Facebook’s Civil Integrity team in 2020
    That means she was part of the team that censored the Hunter Biden story

  54. BTW, per Barry’s link, the “Rather interesting development here” contradicts Matt Walsh’s claim about no actual secrets being revealed.
    If Haugen’s making the first revelations about the Iran/China espionage, then this bit of political theater (Aggie is totally correct) is a tragedy not a farce.

    Cui bono? Or is she for real (even if anti-conservative)?

  55. Mary Chastain gives some perspective on the Whistleblower.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/facebook-and-leftist-whistleblower-want-congress-to-censor-and-regulate-online-speech/

    It’s not laudatory.

    I think commenter randian nailed the agenda, though:
    “Let’s talk about what this is really about: eliminating competition to the left’s stranglehold on social media. Google, Facebook, and Twitter have their algorithmic censorship down pat. Any competition would be required to implement it if Section 230 disappears because manual policing of social media sites is impossible. This enormous cost would eliminate startups in the space, and make life hell for sites like Odyssey and Rumble, who would be sued into oblivion by the left.”

    It’s the usual modus operandi of the Monopolists.

  56. AF, thanks.
    Would tend to agree that this theatrical moment is FB in the role of BK (i.e., Brett Kavanaugh).
    Here’s more of the same, perhaps with some additional angles…

    Mollie Hemingway:
    “Top democratic operative Burton’s involvement helping to manage the ‘Facebook whistleblower’ public debut suggests her argument is part of a broader Democratic operation”:
    https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1445186374416621572

    While Glenn Greenwald adds a characteristically acute wrinkle to this theatrical piece of authoritarian overreach:
    “Democrats and Media Do Not Want to Weaken Facebook, Just Commandeer its Power to Censor”
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1445506265145241608
    …and:
    “…[T]he real goal of Democrats and their liberal corporate media allies is not to weaken or break up Facebook and Google but to transfer their vast monopolistic power to themselves….”
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1445554039521873930
    H/T for all: Mollie Hemingway twitter feed (as per usual, she’s on fire, BTW, with all kinds of important links…)

    Additional note: With this particular “whistleblower” so concerned about the kids, might one wonder where she stands on CRT?

  58. Hold on! Here’s an unexpected development:
    The show, all earnest seriousness up until now(!), is swiftly evolving into a fierce, no-holds barred—and UNCENSORED (imagine that!)—game of “He Said, She Said”!
    (Gosh, who’d a thunk it?)

    Yep, it’s time to have a look at “The Daily Mail”…
    (because we really WOULD PREFER to read some news…):
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10063501/Facebook-calls-internet-regulated-statement-criticizing-Haungen-low-level-employee.html

    One would like to sit back and enjoy the popcorn; alas I’ve no appetite..as the stakes in this most sinister—and nauseating—of “games” are colossal….

    Moreover, should one wonder if “He” has a smidgeon of a chance against “She” in this staged, sordid slugfest?

  59. Starting to see the setup. Let’s make up a future ‘Moving Forward’ quote:

    “We disagree on many things, Congressman, but we can all agree that the Internet needs more regulation on content, and tighter controls on Hate Speech.”

  60. Google has, reportedly, already been co-opted:
    “US government ordering Google to provide users’ search data: report”
    https://nypost.com/2021/10/06/us-government-ordering-search-engines-to-provide-search-data/

    “You see, Zuck, it’s really not that hard.
    Google does it, course they do. No problem.
    Are you trying to tell us that Google can do something that Facebook can’t?
    Come on, Zuck, don’t make get on our bad side. Don’t make us upset.
    We know you can do it. We know you really want to help us.
    Come on Zuck. Help us out here.
    Don’t make us do what we really, really don’t want to do it.
    Don’t make us feel bad.
    Come on Zuck. You’re a decent guy. We’re counting on you….”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑