Google Maps To Block Users From 'Virtual Visits' of Australian Uluru (cnn.com) 224
misnohmer writes: In 2019, the Australian site of Uluru, formerly known as Ayers Rock, has been closed to tourists "after the Anangu people said it was being trashed by visitors eroding its surface, dropping rubbish and polluting nearby waterholes," according to CNN. Parks Australia has now has asked Google to remove all imagery of the site uploaded by the community, as per the wishes of the Uluru's owners -- the Anangu Aboriginal people. Google agreed. "Google is "supportive of this request and is in the process of removing the content," Parks Australia said in a statement. "Parks Australia alerted Google Australia to the user-generated images from the Uluru summit that have been posted on their mapping platform and requested that the content be removed in accordance with the wishes of Anangu, Uluru's traditional owners, and the national park's Film and Photography Guidelines," the statement added.
HELP US! (Score:5, Insightful)
They are virtually offending our religion!
It's one thing to request people to not climb on a sacred site to protect it from damage, it's quite another to request the removals of photographs of it.
Re:HELP US! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand why - tourists will continue to visit (not climb) and photograph Uluru and surroundings.
I do understand that photos of rubbish, vomit, etc would tend to detract, but still.
What next, removal/blurring of satellite images?
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why - tourists will continue to visit (not climb) and photograph Uluru and surroundings.
I do understand that photos of rubbish, vomit, etc would tend to detract, but still.
Couldn't agree more. Doesn't really make sense. And if anything, leave clean good images online, especially if you're looking to ban or even curtail visitors. Would be nice if the rest of the (virtual) world could at least admire the beauty and history from afar.
What next...[crazy idea that should never come to fruition]...?
I think we should really stop saying this, since the Four Horsemen of the modern era (Greed, Stupidity, Ignorance, and Corruption) seem to always respond with an arrogant hold my beer attitude, to ensure the answer to your question, is yes.
Every damn time.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't agree more. Doesn't really make sense. And if anything, leave clean good images online, especially if you're looking to ban or even curtail visitors. Would be nice if the rest of the (virtual) world could at least admire the beauty and history from afar.
That'd be the part where they're only removing the photos on Google maps, and only the ones that were uploaded by tourists.
Re: HELP US! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I do understand that photos of rubbish, vomit, etc would tend to detract, but still.
I think the whole point was to detract so this isn't an issue is it.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't understand why - tourists will continue to visit (not climb) and photograph Uluru and surroundings.
Woke posturing, collecting points for the afterlife. That is why.
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
People are quick to judge before knowing the full picture. Just look at all the comments here. That's the trade-off of the Internet model, by the time a false or poorly written article is rebuked, it's already spread far and wide and people have formed an opinion based on it.
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Informative)
People are quick to judge before knowing the full picture
Kind of like you thinking I didn't know what the exact full picture is before posting? I am well aware that they are only removing the photos on the top of Ularu. Now please address why it changes my point that doing so is incredibly fucking stupid and achieves nothing.
Also no nothing is rebuked. Parks Australia's official position is public: https://parksaustralia.gov.au/... [parksaustralia.gov.au] They are siding with religion over documentation, and it's fucking absurd.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, it does change the point, because showing pictures from the summit creates demand for people to IG from there.
Now why don't you do yourself a favour and stop digging a even bigger hole for yourself, genius. Cause everyone else is 'fucking stupid' aren't they?
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Interesting)
Your point isn't relevant here - No-one is allowed to climb Uluru any more, so "IG" from there isn't a thing. Removing existing pictures of the summit from google doesn't make sense.
I absolutely respect the rights of the owners to do what they see fit - but those photos are available on the internet, they're not going to erase them from public availability. I think someone should explain the Streisand Effect to them.
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Informative)
showing pictures from the summit creates demand for people to IG(*) from there.
That does not seem to be the reason for the request to remove the photo's. From the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]:
The Aangu also request that visitors do not photograph certain sections of Uluru, for reasons related to traditional Tjukurpa (Dreaming) beliefs. These areas are the sites of gender-linked rituals or ceremonies and are forbidden ground for Aangu of the opposite sex to those participating in the rituals in question. The photographic restriction is intended to prevent Aangu from inadvertently violating this taboo by encountering photographs of the forbidden sites in the outside world.
(*) I had to search what "IG" could mean, I guess it is InstaGram?
Re: (Score:2)
So the photos are being removed to prevent adherents of a specific religious group seeing something which is forbidden to their gender?
That just makes me want to put the pictures on a giant billboard.
Re: (Score:3)
How would they "inadvertently" encounter these forbidden images without actively searching for them??
Re: (Score:2)
religion
it's fucking absurd.
Yes, go on?
Its the precedent.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government technically owns just about all public places, including (many..) parks, schools, roads, etc (in the US of course..).
So, you would have no problem with them being able to have any pictures taken in these places that they should decide should not be show, removed?
Sure, this particular case is not likely to be a huge impact on anyone, however it is setting somewhat of a precedent..
The fact that google is quite happy it seems to simply comply by removing images that actually belong to other people is not just a little worrying?
Re:Its the precedent.. (Score:4, Informative)
...The fact that google is quite happy it seems to simply comply by removing images that actually belong to other people is not just a little worrying?
Uh, belong to other people?
Speaking of (legal) precedent, you might want to check the fine print when you upload "your" image to a service Google owns.
If people were actually concerned about censorship or abuse with the services they use, then people would probably take the time to actually read the EULA.
Re: (Score:3)
it seems to simply comply by removing images that actually belong to other people
you might want to check the fine print when you upload "your" image to a service Google owns.
You mean like the Google Terms of Service [google.com] which say:
Your content remains yours, which means that you retain any intellectual property rights that you have in your content.
Of course, just because you own some content which you have uploaded to Google doesn't compel Google to continue to continue to make that content available.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For national security reasons, not some bullshit claim to ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government technically owns just about all public places, including (many..) parks, schools, roads, etc (in the US of course..). So, you would have no problem with them being able to have any pictures taken in these places that they should decide should not be show, removed?
Sure, this particular case is not likely to be a huge impact on anyone, however it is setting somewhat of a precedent.. The fact that google is quite happy it seems to simply comply by removing images that actually belong to other people is not just a little worrying?
Yes but you can vote the US government out if they do that, you can't vote Google's corporate leadership out when they misbehave.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government is also nominally owned by the American people - and routinely does remove or prevent public photography of public property. Just try to take a virtual tour of the Pentagon's vaults and see how successful you are.
A better comparison though, as a privately owned holy site, is the catacombs and secret vaults of the Vatican. I imagine you wouldn't dream of insisting the Vatican allow public tours or allow posting tourist photos of such sites, so what makes it different when the holy site is
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine you wouldn't dream of insisting the Vatican allow public tours or allow posting tourist photos of such sites, so what makes it different when the holy site is built by one groups God rather than Man?
Teacher let me try, I know this one.
Man actually exists.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not worrying to me, because that precedent was set a long time ago. They routinely take down content on YouTube that is clearly fair use, like using brief excerpts of songs to illustrate concepts of music theory. My enlightenment gets impeded to appease copyright holders.
Really, the only revelation here is that religious groups have the same sway over them to make bad decisions as copyright trolls do. That they have no backbone? That was already known.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously comparing the public obligations of the federal government to the rights of a native tribe?
What's the difference exactly? It's still a group of people that behave in their own interests, logic notwithstanding.
Re: Its the precedent.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm curious what exactly makes being part of a native tribe something magical? You do realize that they migrated there at some point, just like the rest of the human race migrated across the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not have to makes sense, people do nonsensical things all the time, like you did when you got your panties in a twist over them having those pictures taken down. Why do you even care? I sure as hell don't.
Because a lot of us believe in the original premise of the internet that information should be free. Censoring information is not a good thing, except in rare cases. (Personally identifiable information to prevent stalking/harassment, child porn, etc.)
Pointless censoring of information is bad, full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry no. The rock doesn't "belong to them". That would be like claiming that your birthplace belonged to you and you "can do whatever they want with it ". It doesn't work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
The rock belongs to them, but why should the pictures? I'm reminded of Brian Eno removing the track "Quran" from his 1982 LP "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts" because it sampled chanting from the holy book. It was one of the better tracks. I enjoyed hearing it. But I never would have, save for hunting down a rip of an early pressing on BitTorrent.
I saw some pictures of Uluru on Wikipedia, and I enjoyed that too. I enjoyed adding the tile depicting Uluru to my empire in Civilization 5. When we disallow these t
Re: (Score:3)
I know what is being removed, my point remains the same. It's stupid.
Re: HELP US! (Score:2, Interesting)
So you have your beliefs and they have their own. Can we all agree that all are stupid so we can move on to more important news?
Like how a small number of people trashed this place and disrespected the locals just for their personal glorification and we as a society paid the price by losing access to it? Isn't that the real story, only diminished by the sad reality it happens too often?
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is valid. Looks more like cashing in selling licenses if you ask me.
The Aangu also request that visitors do not photograph certain sections of Uluru, for reasons related to traditional Tjukurpa (Dreaming) beliefs. These areas are the sites of gender-linked rituals or ceremonies and are forbidden ground for Aangu of the opposite sex to those participating in the rituals in question. The photographic restriction is intended to prevent Aangu from inadvertently violating this taboo by encountering photographs of the forbidden sites in the outside world.
So no, not cashing in.
Re: (Score:2)
No, worse: Ancient sexist codes given the protection of religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Google Australia told the ABC that it was working on having all the images removed, including the user-generated content that allowed the walk-through.
"All the images". "Including". Clearly it's not identical things if it's only "including" the user-generated content.
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope to live to see the day where we stop allowing mystical woo to dictate our laws. Where enough people stop believing in stupid shit and stand up and say, "We're no longer allowing your invisible friend to impact our lives."
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Funny)
I really hope to live to see the day where we stop allowing mystical woo to dictate our laws. Where enough people stop believing in stupid shit and stand up and say, "We're no longer allowing your invisible friend to impact our lives."
Amen to that !!
Re: (Score:2)
But whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, Google's decision was inevitable. I mean, pity the poor exec who will have to explain to woke Google emplo
Re: (Score:3)
They were only given legal jurisdiction recently. They've been upset about it for a while but it's only recently - in the last couple of years - they've had the legal clout to say "no more". And fair enough.
But trying to remove existing pictures smacks of political manouevering, and some of our first nations folk are very good at that.
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Insightful)
>smacks of political manouevering, and some of our first nations folk are very good at that.
And that's a problem for you? Given the initial and ongoing political maneuvering that was used to steal their land and subject them to some truly horrifying abuses, they *need* to get good at it - the war against them is ongoing, and political maneuvering is very often the only remotely effective weapon in their arsenal.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying it's political maneuvering doesn't *explain* anything. Everything you accomplish *as a group* that does not involve pointing a gun at someone is political maneuvering.
It's more useful to compare and contrast the nature of unfamiliar group's concerns with ones more familiar to us. We have our own sacred spaces. A few years ago a woman staged a photo [dailymail.co.uk] at Arlington National Cemetery where she she gives the middle finger and yells in front of the sign asking people to be silent and respectful.
Everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Re:HELP US! (Score:5, Informative)
We’re not talking about taking pictures while on public property. We’re talking about people illegally going to a private location and then posting pictures from there. Fundamentally, it’s the same as you asking Google to remove photos of the interior of your home taken by vandals who broke in and wrecked the place. They had no right to be there in the first place, they certainly have no right to share images of your private quarters, and you certainly don’t want anything they’ve posted to encourage others to try the same.
Re: (Score:3)
No. We're talking about photos made by people who climbed the mountain LEGALLY before the ban was put into place. Fundamentally, it's the same as me selling my house, and the new owner demanding I take down all of the photos I took in the house before I sold it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamentally, it's the same as me selling my house, and the new owner demanding I take down all of the photos I took in the house before I sold it.
Yes. Assuming the new owners also owned the house for thousands of years prior, and you took it from them against their will.
In that case it's exactly the same.
I don't agree with sacred site mystical fairy dust reasons you aren't allowed to take pictures. In fact I think it's completely absurd.
But the situation isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
No. We're talking about photos made by people who climbed the mountain LEGALLY before the ban was put into place.
When do you think that was? Hint: it wasn’t 2019 when the climb was closed.
In actuality, the ban has been in place since the ‘90s. There have been signs posted all around the base of the climb since that time telling people not to climb, and the Anangu people had been asking visitors not to climb since ownership was handed back to them in 1985. The ethical considerations have been unchanged for the last three and a half decades, and the legal ones have been unchanged for the last two and a half.
Re: (Score:3)
When do you think that was? Hint: it wasn’t 2019 when the climb was closed.
False. It was 2019 when the climb was closed. In the 90s Parks Australia enforced no bans beyond asking people to kindly obey the desires of people who see the site as sacred and not climb it.
There is a big difference between asking for an action and legally enforcing an action, the latter of which was done less than 1 year ago. Prior to November people could climb whatever the fuck they wanted on that mountain and precisely no one could do anything about it. i.e. It wasn't "banned".
Re:HELP US! (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that ownership of the mountain was given back to those people and they’ve declared that part off-limits, yes, it is private. Their reasoning doesn’t matter. What matters is that it’s theirs to decide, and they’ve decided people can’t go up there.
You also seem to think that being owned by more than one person makes something public. It doesn’t. Many mortgages have more than one name on them. Skyscrapers may be owned by corporations that are themselves owned by thousands of people. But in both those cases, we’re still talking about private property.
Now, you can disagree with their decision or think it ridiculous. That’s fine. But your disagreement doesn’t give you or anyone else the right to violate the rights they have over than land.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
The interior of your house is a private place, belonging only to you. It's a real, physical location.
This is a fucking mountain, owned by a whole lot of people
A house owned by a group of people (e.g. your family) would be OK, then, if it is owned by multiple people? How many people are allowed to own something before anyone can come and take a look if they fancy? 1, 2, 3, 10, 100?
Mountain and Muhammad (Score:2)
It's just a rock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those pictures were taken illegally according to the original regional authority, whose legitimate authority has finally been acknowledged by the invaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally a way to remove data from the GAFA! (Score:2)
Why is this still a thing? (Score:2)
Worth the virtual visit (Score:2)
I'm glad I looked at it while I could. It looks like quite a beautiful, amazing place. I sympathize against all the litterbugs and folks who treat it disrespectfully, and it's a shame the photos will be removed. I'm certain, though, that there will be some blogger out there with his or her own photos, and probably, images.google.com.
Information wants to be free! (Score:3, Informative)
It is just bizarre visiting Slashdot these days. This used to be the home of freedom for information, particularly on the internet. We bought T-Shirts with the RSA encryption algorithm on it to protest government censorship efforts. Google came along and was founded with the motto "don't be evil".
And now a preponderance of comments at Slash-freaking-dot are in *favor* of Google removing images? Of anything?
What in the ever-loving?
Re: (Score:2)
These days, I spend more time on SoylentNews. Not as technical, but as I have learned from hard experience, we can't focus solely on technology and science, can't expect the technical merits, facts, and rationality to carry the day.
Perhaps it is that kind of Asperger attitude that opened the door for the trolls taking over the government. Anti-intellectualism has been rampant. We were not prepared for it. I understand it better now, maybe well enough to deal with it and shut down the bull. Still don'
Ridiculous (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is religion overriding prior law? Google has allowed you to remove images of your property from day 1, based purely on property rights and privacy laws.
ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm ultimately fine with being reasonably respectful to places sacred to primitive peoples. I mean, really, why not be nice when we can? And nobody would say that tourists in large bunches are anything but odious.
But to then demand a global, retroactive removal of images in order that a teensy minority of people (0.01% of the world population, assuming every aboriginal Australian is devout about this) aren't religiously offended?
That's absurd.
Maybe Muslims can request a removal of any Christian symbology as offensive? Or vice versa? They're both much larger populations. Aren't they entitled to the same consideration?
Maybe next they could insist that people destroy any pictures they have saved in boxes at home or request surgery to excise it from people's memory?
Can the pope then ask Google to please remove any picture of a Catholic church as a House Of God? Would we accept that? Can some whacko commune in Idaho ask for their property to no longer show up on Google maps? Those requests would (rightly) be seen as absurd.
Now...since the requests are explicitly based on religious grounds (aboriginals don't want the sacred top of the rock revealed, as they apparently have a men-only and women-only sides, and they don't want their own people to inadvertently see something they shouldn't while browsing the internet by accident) I'm wondering when atheists (and probably feminists) will attack Google and Parks Australia in their usual shrill voice for this clear pandering to an imaginary sky god and obvious patriarchy?
Fetishization of primitives ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
... is the religion of the "woke". Google must follow their own sacred rules.
You'll end up downvoted, but yeah, pretty much this.
These are people that worship a big rock. Logically, we shouldn't pay any attention to their religion. I suppose it is their rock to worship as they please, but we shouldn't have to listen to their nonsense regarding said rock.
Something like this happened in Minnesota (Score:2)
There was a tree called the witch tree on Lake Superior. Years ago I took a picture when it was available to the public to see the tree. Since that time some people bought the land and turned it over to a local native American Indian tribe which promptly closed off access to the tree for religious purposes.
http://highwayhighlights.com/2... [highwayhighlights.com]
Should their religion be an excuse to censor the for the world at large? Do muslims get to start censoring things worldwide based on their religion? We already have twitte
Re:Well I'm no fan of censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Among them are photographs of sacred locations that are forbidden to be seen except by those participating in rituals there. How is it more rational to allow the Vatican to forbid images of their sacred vaults, than it is to allow another religion to forbid images of a church built directly by God? Not every culture insists on trying to imprison God in a church of their own making.
Re:Well I'm no fan of censorship... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's not pretend that the Anangou are any less rational than other people. You are not allowed to post pictures of the illuminated Eiffel tower in Paris without a license. People make up strange rules all the time.
Let's not pretend lawmakers are any less stupid than any other human. That's not a "strange" law. It's a fucking stupid and unenforceable law.
There is a difference, and if you don't call Stupid out for being stupid, Stupid will become your next lawmaker, and put stupid unenforceable shit like this on the books and pretend they did something for the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's strange that indigenous people apparently have a better grasp of property rights than the people who invented them. What part of "it is their property" don't you understand? It's not even imaginary property. They own that rock.
Yeah. And Barbara Streisand owns a house in Malibu. On the side of a cliff. Near the ocean. Gee, don't ask how me and another billion people know about that.
It doesn't even matter what the reason for the rule is. Noting why they don't want pictures taken on the rock is just a courtesy. Would you prefer to pay a steep fine for not following their rules on their property instead of just having a takedown request issued against the result of the transgression?
No, I'd rather come to a reasonable agreement about photographing things like this, rather than us learn nothing from history.
This "beneficial" move, will most likely (and sadly) make things worse. The 99.999% of us who had never even heard of this rock, are now curious. If it were not for COVID, people would be converging en masse as I type this,
Re: (Score:2)
It's strange that indigenous people apparently have a better grasp of property rights than the people who invented them. What part of "it is their property" don't you understand? It's not even imaginary property. They own that rock.
Yeah. And Barbara Streisand owns a house in Malibu. On the side of a cliff. Near the ocean. Gee, don't ask how me and another billion people know about that.
It doesn't even matter what the reason for the rule is. Noting why they don't want pictures taken on the rock is just a courtesy. Would you prefer to pay a steep fine for not following their rules on their property instead of just having a takedown request issued against the result of the transgression?
No, I'd rather come to a reasonable agreement about photographing things like this, rather than us learn nothing from history.
This "beneficial" move, will most likely (and sadly) make things worse. The 99.999% of us who had never even heard of this rock, are now curious. If it were not for COVID, people would be converging en masse as I type this, just because you forbid them. They're probably doing it anyway. See Streisand Effect. Also, fucking humans.
Yes, I understand something had to be done. This wasn't the answer.
Even without COVID I think the number of people who did not know about Uluru that would decide they wanted to travel anything up to 12000 miles to go to it are pretty limited. And they'd be breaking the law if they tried to go up to the summit anyway. Streisand's house is a lot nearer to a lot more people, and while people can look it, I doubt very few travel 12000 miles and try to walk on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, don't ask how me and another billion people know about that.
You didn't learn it from someone taking pictures on her property. There is, and will continue to be, aerial photography of Uluru. It's not about that.
99.999% of us who had never even heard of this rock
I see you are American: ignorant and proud of it.
Re: (Score:2)
...But now the traditional owners of the land are inviting people from all over the world to see and learn more about this incredible site without having to actually travel here. Thousands of 360 degree pictures of Uluru have been captured with this, a massive backpack with 15 cameras that takes pictures in every direction. Those pictures will then go up on Google's Street View website for anyone to explore. ...
Re: (Score:2)
But according to traditional laws here some parts of Uluru are extra special places with significance that can only be understood by the Anangu elders. So, images of these areas couldn't be included in the final experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not pretend that the Anangou are any less rational than other people.
Or any more rational. In fact, they are totally irrational just like other people and should also be ignored when they act irrationally.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have nature on my property; it's a building.
Is that why you think you have a right to help yourself to the nature on other people's property?
Re: (Score:2)
help yourself to the nature
What?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why you think you have a right to help yourself to the nature on other people's property?
A picture is not in any way "helping yourself" to the property of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rock doesn't need to be copyrighted for the owners to have the right to exclude people from taking pictures on their property and publ
Re: (Score:2)
Going to someone's place and ignoring their request not to take pictures is rude.
How about going to someone's place and taking pictures in line with their wishes, as Google Streets did two years ago? Clearly it's not their fault that the owners don't know what they actually want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, the legality of photographing anything is controlled by privacy, rather than by copyright. A museum can control photography on its premises, but it has o practical jurisdiction over the outdoors. It may be technically illegal to take a shot of the Eiffel Tower during that minute each hour when the lights are flashing, but this has not deterred millions of tourists. The city of Chicago tried to ban photography of Cloud Gate, the sculpture, but technicality was log ago overwhelmed by popularity.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, the legality of photographing anything is controlled by privacy, rather than by copyright. A museum can control photography on its premises, but it has o practical jurisdiction over the outdoors.
Why do you think all museums or even art galleries are entirely indoors? A classic example would be the Yorkshire Sculpture Park, an outdoor gallery, or many of the industrial heritage museums (hint: It's hard to get a bridge across a river indoors).
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not pretend that the Anangou are any less rational than other people
Well, they clearly are, since this is an irrational stance that they have but some other people don't.
Some people think the concept of private property is irrational (I am not one of those) so I am not sure what your point is other than some people may have views you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a big flaming rock, mate.
Re: (Score:2)
These sacred images should not be looked upon by outsiders without the express permission of it's ancestral owners.
Too bad we couldn't use this as justification to stop the elderly from making porn.
I was damn near blinded by a fucking pop-up in the 90s.
well played. (Score:2)
I almost took you seriously until the comment at the end, well played.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These sacred images
lol
ancestral owners
lol
this noble civilization's sacred lands
lol
Re: (Score:2)
What? I can't leave virtual garbage?
On that note. What happened to anonymous posting? Aren't we allowed to leave our virtual garbage everywhere anymore?
Ahh, umm, asking for a friend...