Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook United States

Meta Says It Isn't Ending Fact-Checks Outside US 'At This Time' (cointelegraph.com) 107

Posted by BeauHD from the only-in-America dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CoinTelegraph: Social media platform Meta has confirmed that its fact-checking feature on Facebook, Instagram and Threads will only be removed in the US for now, according to a Jan. 13 letter sent to Brazil's government. "Meta has already clarified that, at this time, it is terminating its independent Fact-Checking Program only in the United States, where we will test and refine the community notes [feature] before expanding to other countries," Meta told Brazil's Attorney General of the Union (AGU) in a Portuguese-translated letter.

Meta's letter followed a 72-hour deadline Brazil's AGU set for Meta to clarify to whom the removal of the third-party fact verification feature would apply. [...] Brazil has expressed dissatisfaction with Meta's removal of its fact check feature, Brazil Attorney-General Jorge Messias said on Jan. 10. "Brazil has rigorous legislation to protect children and adolescents, vulnerable populations, and the business environment, and we will not allow these networks to transform the environment into digital carnage or barbarity." Last Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced an end to fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram -- a move he described as an attempt to restore free expression on its platforms. He likened his company's fact-checking process to a George Orwell novel, saying it "something out of 1984" and let to a broad belief that Meta fact-checkers "were too biased."

Meta Says It Isn't Ending Fact-Checks Outside US 'At This Time' More | Reply

Meta Says It Isn't Ending Fact-Checks Outside US 'At This Time'

Comments Filter:
  • The red states who thought it was a good idea to ban online porn, forcing people to use VPNs have really not done themselves a favour.

    How long is it until a VPN becomes pretty much mandatory for internet browsing?
    • Did they think people would just go to church instead or something?

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Did they think people would just go to church instead or something?

        No. Since the preventative action probably has more to do with the amount of 13-year old boys that will be asking your daughter why she doesn’t do ass-to-mouth yet.

        If we thought dating apps created delusional women’s dating standards, the hell do we think a 24/7 hardcore porn-surfing device put in every teenage boys hand under the guise of “smartphone safety” did to an entire generation of sexual standards? Talk about shit even the Catholics don’t teach..

        • Re:VPN, not just for porn any more. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @08:39AM (#65090413) Homepage

          Yes, parents, who want the government out of the lives of their children always turn to the government to oppress everyone else when they are unwilling to try to parent.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Yes, parents, who want the government out of the lives of their children always turn to the government to oppress everyone else when they are unwilling to try to parent.

            No. Real parents who are parenting properly, do not want their morally trusting and ethically loyal child to be raped and pillaged by everyone and everything else. Also known as giving a shit about someone other than the narcissist in the mirror.

            Parents who don’t parent, aren’t parents. And until it becomes legal to start slapping the sense back into other people’s kids again, who else other than government? Not-a-parent ain’t gonna do shit to help. And teaching every child Zero

            • Re:VPN, not just for porn any more. (Score:4, Interesting)

              by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @09:14AM (#65090521) Homepage

              Sounds like a helocopter parent. I can't let billy experience pain he's my baby!

              Give him a medal, he tried his best!

              Real life sucks. Teach children to follow your rules or feel consiquences. Then teach them that trust is earned and that most of the world is out for itself. You can't create morality with laws. Morality comes from the parents not the government. If everyone parented these problems would go away.

              • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

                by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
                Telling teachers to not talk about their sexual fetishes to their elementary and middle school students is protecting the children. Early exposure to sexual topics isn't healthy (especially when unstructured), and that topic is best left to parents. Yes, some parents will screw things up for their kids, but I don't want a random teacher talking about sex to any of my kids. Every single year in my metro area there are at least 2-3 teachers arrested for inappropriate relationships with minors.

                As for the bann

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by v1 ( 525388 )

            "laws for Thee, but not for Me"

          • Yep. Anyone doubting this should check their Audio CD's for "explicit lyrics" forced-labeling and talk to 2 Live Crew. Parents are scared shitless and some take out their fears and doubts on everyone else's individual rights.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dfghjk ( 711126 )

          "If we thought dating apps created delusional women’s dating standards, the hell do we think a 24/7 hardcore porn-surfing device put in every teenage boys hand under the guise of “smartphone safety” did to an entire generation of sexual standards? Talk about shit even the Catholics don’t teach.."

          You know "hardcore porn" predates dating apps, right? And what do Catholics teach that creates "delusional women's dating standards"? And what is put into "every teenage boy's hand under th

          • "If we thought dating apps created delusional women’s dating standards, the hell do we think a 24/7 hardcore porn-surfing device put in every teenage boys hand under the guise of “smartphone safety” did to an entire generation of sexual standards? Talk about shit even the Catholics don’t teach.."

            You know "hardcore porn" predates dating apps, right? And what do Catholics teach that creates "delusional women's dating standards"? And what is put into "every teenage boy's hand under the guise of 'smartphone safety'"? None of this makes any sense.

            I don't think any "13-year old boys" are asking daughters about "ass-to-mouth", but we can see what's on your mind, AC.

            Well, there needed to be something since there's no Sears catalog any more.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by GoTeam ( 5042081 )

              Well, there needed to be something since there's no Sears catalog any more.

              It's amazing how many teenage boys used to shop for bras...

          • I think most teenage boys already figured out what to put in their hand

        • No. Since the preventative action probably has more to do with the amount of 13-year old boys that will be asking your daughter why she doesn’t do ass-to-mouth yet.

          That's what happens when you make it so porn is the only sex ed kids get. Hiding the porn isn't the solution though.

    • Re:VPN, not just for porn any more. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Z80a ( 971949 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @08:07AM (#65090323)

      Dictators will eventually demand to shut down all VPN services, or make you need a special "license" to use one.

      • That level of government interference is going to piss off a lot of employers and WFH employees.

        Dictators might get away with it in third world countries, but I think if they try it here, those dictators will find that they were only able to be dictators with corporate support.

    • How long is it until a VPN becomes pretty much mandatory for internet browsing?

      Thats the point really. Get everyone to be a law breaker then when the government wants to stop someone who is inconvenient they simply charge them with being a criminal and send them to jail or worse.

    • Re: VPN, not just for porn any more. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @08:39AM (#65090417)
      It's kind of an amazing admission. It says "facts are facts and accuracy matters... except in the US."
      • It says different nations have different laws, with the US leaning more towards free speech.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Targon ( 17348 )

          Free speech would let me say without any risk of a lawsuit, "Donald Trump is a goat fucker, and has been seen by multiple people actually fucking barn animals". Allowing and encouraging lies and falsehoods is a BAD thing. Now, freedom to state opinions is another matter entirely. No one wants to see free speech removed, but this nonsense that people should be free to spread misinformation, not just biased, but fully fake needs to go away.

          Anyone who wants to defend Donald Trump and his friends telling

          • You wouldn't be allowed to post what you just posted on most social media sites. Sure, you were making a point about xyz, actually the opposite of embracing it, but the words just wouldn't be allowed, period.

            • Now you will, as long as it's about an approved target. What will get censored is when someone tries to point out the original is libel.

              Zuck isn't removing censorship, he's removing restrictions on right wing propaganda.

              • Why do you say that? What left wing propaganda has been banned? Are people not allowed to speak in support of Luigi's act of murder? Are people not allowed to claim that religious people must be mentally ill? Or that companies need more 'feminine energy'? Or anti-Trump sentiments?

                If those statements are getting blocked or getting people banned, then Meta is garbage and a huge hypocrite.

                • Have you seen how Musk handles Twitter/X? Recently he banned a Canadian account for pointing out Canadians don't actually want to be Americans. Called it 'hate speech'.

                  That's what's coming to Facebook/Meta.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by lsllll ( 830002 )

            Funny how you can say, without any risk of a lawsuit, what you just did. It's called parody and is very protected as free speech. See Hustler vs. Falwell.

        • If you lie, and I call you a liar, we have both exercised our free speech.

        • with the US leaning more towards free speech.

          You don't genuinely believe that do you?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lsllll ( 830002 )

            There NO other country out there where I can run my mouth in as many directions as I can in the U.S. Not having free speech in the U.S. is about as far from the truth as you can get. It's probably the thing I most enjoy since having become a naturalized citizen.

            • Lots of places have that but you know free speech isn't the ability to blatantly lie to people's face and be upset when you are challenged?

        • Convicted rapist Mark Zuckerberg.

        • Meta's fact-checking feature was implemented and enforced entirely voluntarily, not as a result of U.S. or foreign law. The fact that they're removing it now, and only in the U.S., does say a lot about their intentions: particularly how desperate Zuckerberg is to simp for Trump. I guess since Leon bowed out of their fight, Zuck is going to try to beat him in the fight for top Trump suckup. He's still got a long way to go to catch up, but at least we can get a bit of amusement in watching the world's rich
      • No it doesn't, the stated reason for removing US fact checkers is that they're so politically biased and wrong so much of the time that community notes would likely do a better job of actually checking facts. I'm not on facebook or in the US so I can't confirm if this true or not but I don't find it an absolutely incredible claim.

        • So fact checkers in every other country around the world are good honest people and only the American ones are bad at their job? That doesnt seem likely.

          They might be saying this is the reason but stuff like this makes these claims seem awfully suspect. Seems much more likely to me these claims are about kowtowing to the incoming US president while not pissing off the rest of the world.

        • the stated reason for removing US fact checkers is that they're so politically biased and wrong so much of the time that community notes would likely do a better job of actually checking facts. I'm not on facebook or in the US so I can't confirm if this true or not but I don't find it an absolutely incredible claim

          I don't think that's the real reason, but I do think it's true. Facebook moderation is famously shit, why would the fact checking (which is related) be any different?

          I think the real reason is that he doesn't want Faceboot to get sued by Trump in case it does accurate fact checking. Until Section 230 is repealed (count on the Reps to give it the ol' college try at least once in the next 4 years) Facebook isn't liable for community-driven fact checking.

        • There’s a reason Zuckerberg gave a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration.

        • the stated reason for removing US fact checkers is that they're so politically biased and wrong so much of the time that community notes would likely do a better job of actually checking facts.

          Which makes it a good example of the bandwagon fallacy [thoughtco.com].

      • The government is not an arbiter of truth and neither are social media platforms. If you want to outsource your thinking to a fact checker, go ahead, but don't try to force that bullshit on anyone else.
        • Spreading lies use to have consequences, now it is celebrated.

          All you really need is some sketchy website to post some random bull shit. Next you have some random public official repeat some random bull shit and claim they don't know if it's true but that is what they heard. Finally you have other sketchy websites report on the public official's comments and now it's forever a thing.
      • Fact checkers often selectively check facts. For example the "rule of thumb" myth gets a pass but "women are the perpetrators in about half of domestic violence" gets ruthlessly "fact checked" against whatever feminists are claiming. Fact checkers are often biased. For example a liberal saying "the sky is blue" gets a "true' but Trump saying "the sky is blue" gets a "mostly false" because it's black half the time and can sometimes be red or white. Fact checkers can be and often are hired or trained to inser

      • Ob. quote from the late Sen. Pat Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts".

        Said quote is apparently no longer pertinent under the Dear Orange Leader..

      • Blatant capitulation to the incoming regime. Because they know fact checking the orange shit pile would make said shit pile look bad, and that would mean less $$ for FB.
        • I think this more than anything else. If you look at all the tech companies, they comport. Ironically Brazil, not exactly a huge economic power, 10th I think, is telling Zuck (and also Leon a few months ago) how they will act in Brazil. Unsurprisingly they all bend knee to China's demands and to a lessor extent India, two very large moneymakers. Tech speaks one language, money. Now I will say Leon may go to far with his telling countries like the UK and EU how to vote. Perhaps his successfully buying the US

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rujiel ( 1632063 )

        The amount of pearl-clutching on here around a fucking fact checking service is unprecedented. You don't even know who or what was doing the "fact-checking", nor do you care.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      They think they have, not only have they accomplished a sexual purity law but VPN use can identify who should be put in jail.

      "How long is it until a VPN becomes pretty much mandatory for internet browsing?"

      The question should be how long before VPNs are illegal in red states. You can't oppress when you can't see. Or better yet, require VPNs to be honey pots.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Depends on how cynical you are doesn't it.

      If you actually care about keeping harmful content away from children. Then age-verification laws work and VPN or no VPN who cares.

      Little Johnny age 7 with his iPad isn't going to install a VPN, in fact if the parental controls are enabled, if he even tries and goes to the app store, mom or dad will get an request to approve the app install which they will deny. It is an effective parental control that everyone is able to use without having to have special IT knowl

  • Because they would get kicked out (Score:3, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @08:24AM (#65090359)
    Almost instantly. The rest of the world just watched Elon Musk spend 300 million dollars buying an election and he's currently praising German neo-Nazi party. They're already taking steps to kick him out of their election and his entire website with it. If Facebook starts letting the Nazis run rampant on their site then their next.



    Free speech has limits and that limit is when you're obviously lying. False advertising is a crime. Stupid people fall for stupid things and there are lots and lots of stupid people and they don't just hurt themselves

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The rest of the world would quickly ban facebook if they stop fact checking. Facebook is already in most governments "bad books", and most governments are being pressured to enact legislation that curbs "hate speech" or other undesirable content. Having Facebook just flat-out ignore all of that would pretty much mean insta-ban.

      Conversely, in the US, if FB actually did try to fact check things, they'd be legislated against for silencing the whacky right wing nutjobs that are becoming emboldened because of th

    • Re:Because they would get kicked out (Score:4, Informative)

      by jmccue ( 834797 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @09:05AM (#65090485) Homepage
      In the US just take a peek at Twitter. It took time for the Nazis to run rampant. maybe in a year or 2 the same will occur on Facebook.
    • Another limit is when you criticize people with power to shut you up. Do you really think political incumbents are more interested in the truth than in maintaining their power?
    • Fact check: Despite claims by its opponents, the AfD party is not in any way a supporter of Nazis, fascism, or anything resembling Nazi policies.
    • Fact check: (1) Mord billionaires supported Harris than Trump, and (2) the only people calling the AfD "Nazi" are its political opponents - many of its positions are left of the US Democrats.

  • Corporations don't care about you, me, or anyone else. They care only about appeasing the government of the day. Expect fact checking to return to the USA when the republicans lose the next election.

    • They care only about appeasing the government of the day.

      Only is as much as to maximise their profit potential which is all any real corp actually cares about.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Facebook doesn't do fact checking. This is about the pretense of fact checking, beneficial when Democrats have power, a liability otherwise. It's all a show.

    • Usually. Elon Musk with Twitter is a clear example of a business owner who's going to do what he wants to do even if it drives the business into the ground. So, that's what 'integrity' by a business looks like up close. The My Pillow guy too, I guess. Or on the other side you have Patagonia, which has a decades-long reputation for environment and social responsibility / activism.

      "I could be wrong" but I think Zuckerberg's remarks about 'male energy' in the workplace are a sentiment of how he really fee

  • Hey Zuck... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pollux ( 102520 ) <speter@tedat[ ]et.eg ['a.n' in gap]> on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @08:41AM (#65090423) Journal

    Just thought you'd like to know, there's something brown and gooey on your nose there...you might want to clean it off, it reeks of convicted felon.

  • Facts matter ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @09:06AM (#65090491)

    Meta Says It Isn't Ending Fact-Checks Outside US 'At This Time'

    Yeah, it didn't take very long after 'The Zuck' announced the end of fact checks on Facebook for EU and S-American national leaders to make it clear there would be consequences if Facebook did this in their corner of the world, reason being that they don't want torrents of non-fact-checked digital sewage pumped into their back yard. The mere fact that this change is limited to the USA which is functionally the same as saying that facts matter everywhere except in the PRC, Hungary, Russia, Middle Eastern dictatorships and now the USA says a lot about the state of American public discourse. This isn't being done to increase free speech it is being done because a certain type of person got butt-hurt over being called out for spreading lies and the consequences that brought with it.

    • It's easier to sell lies when they can't be effectively challenged. They know exactly what they're doing, and it isn't promoting free speech - it's securing a domestic propaganda outlet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      umm know its because a bunch of neo-marxist scum buckets rule in places like SA and, the Zuck is a cuckold always has been.

      He is afraid of them, just like he was afraid of the Obama and Biden people. It sad he does not just give them the middle finger and do the right thing, push free expression everwhere but at least he is just a freckles mercenary and not a Demorat true believer.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Is "neo-marxist" your new word of the day?

        Looking at your posts apparently everyone but America's far right and a small handful of others are neo-marxists. What a strange world you live in.

        • Is "neo-marxist" your new word of the day?

          Looking at your posts apparently everyone but America's far right and a small handful of others are neo-marxists. What a strange world you live in.

          My word, or rather concept, of the day is 'freedom-of-speech', complete freedom of speech, the kind of freedom of speech where not just the lying bullshitters have freedom of speech but where people who fact check lying bullshitters and call them out for being bullshitters are free to speak too no matter how butt-hurt the bullshitters get over that. It's the kind of world where 'neo-marxists' are free to speak too, not just MAGA drones.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            I get frustrated by a lot of the free speech claims nowadays from the right as apparently (at least for some of them) it's only free speech when it's something they agree with meanwhile when a company that runs a web company exercises their own free speech rights by taking down a post they don't want on their platform these same people go crazy.

            Not that I necessarily agree with corporate personhood but it's conservatives that pushed that one on us.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Njovich ( 553857 )

      reason being that they don't want torrents of non-fact-checked digital sewage pumped into their back yard.

      I'm from the Netherlands, honestly it's a bit of a mixed bag what politicians here think of fact-checkers. Obviously on a day like this you will hear more complaints from the people heavily in favor. However, I think there is pretty broad consensus that fact checking is only good if you can do it objectively, and that's very hard.

      There is a specific EU organization, the East StratCom Task Force, designed specifically to tackle Russian disinformation. It is mostly known as EUvsDisinfo. Russian disinformation

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        reason being that they don't want torrents of non-fact-checked digital sewage pumped into their back yard.

        I'm from the Netherlands, honestly it's a bit of a mixed bag what politicians here think of fact-checkers. Obviously on a day like this you will hear more complaints from the people heavily in favor. However, I think there is pretty broad consensus that fact checking is only good if you can do it objectively, and that's very hard.

        There is a specific EU organization, the East StratCom Task Force, designed specifically to tackle Russian disinformation. It is mostly known as EUvsDisinfo. Russian disinformation is of course a very real problem. After EUvsDisinfo made some mistakes and mistakenly called out some Dutch publications for distributing disinformation, the Dutch parliament (which is hardly a MAGA like group) voted in favor of requesting the EU to abolish this organization. The organization was not abolished in the end but they did have to change their way of working.

        Even with the best intentions it's enormously complicated to get a group of people to accurately fact-check items without letting politics or their personal opinion getting in the way.

        I also think if you look at X and the fact-checking there, it's actually pretty good and pretty balanced. Even when it's flawed, at least it's a fairly transparant process in how it works.

        So it's somehow better that politicians get to bully billionaire CEOs into deciding that it is not acceptable to point out that some bullshitters social media post does not survive even cursory comparison with reality because that would mane a certain part of the electorate very, very, butt-hurt? Like for example pointing out that there isn't a shred of scientifically verifiable evidence that Ivermectin will cure acute respiratory viral infections? What happens when the un-fact-checked bullshit gets thousan

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cob666 ( 656740 )
      This is the truth, and very sad for the US as a whole.
      It's amazing how much of my Facebook feed is just blatantly obvious lies and propaganda. There are apparently still people out there that see a single post online somewhere and just accept it as truth, which is no longer based on any factual evidence.

  • "Fact-Checking Donald Trump". 'Nuff Said!

  • Freedom of Expression != Blatant Lies (Score:3)

    by cob666 ( 656740 ) on Wednesday January 15, 2025 @09:33AM (#65090551)
    So Facebook / Meta is removing fact checking so their platform promotes 'open and free speech'? What a huge crock of bullshit that is. Private companies are under no, ZERO, obligation to comply with any form of Free Speech and providing fact checking ensures that outright lies and dangerous conspiracy theories are flagged as such. If Suckerberg was really interested in providing a platform that provided an open forum then he should implement policies that remove fact checking ONLY from private groups or pages, any public post SHOULD be fact checked.

    Like Twitter (X), Facebook will quickly (again) turn into another propaganda outlet that spreads misinformation and confusion, which ONLY ends up hurting everyone in the long run.

    • As always, the problem is who you trust to decide what is a "blatant lie". I don't see how a for-profit company can create an organization that is completely free from financial pressure. I don't see how a government can create an organization that is completely free form political pressure.

      Combine that with the problem that many real issues are complicated. For example "did climate change cause the Los Angeles fires?". Well, it very likely changed the probability, but there hasn't been time for a peer

      • As always, the problem is who you trust to decide what is a "blatant lie"

        Ivermectin cures covid. There. A complete and blatant lie. There is no discssion about it. The horse paste does nothing for covid.

        People like you will always default to the bullshit excuse because you want to spread your lies and disinformation. Your statement about no peer reviewed study for climate change and LA wildfires flies in the face of all the studies done which show Ivermection doesn't do shit for covid.

        How

        • Why do you believe that Invermectin is ineffective against COVID? FWIW I agree that it is ineffective, but I have not read that in peer reviewed papers describing studies, have you? I believe it because people whose opinions I trust believe it, and because it fits with my general but totally inexpert medical knowlege. - but I also recognize that that is a very poor way to get to "truth". The people who believe Invermectin works do so because people THEY trust believe it. J

          Here is a paper on invermectin

  • The rest of the world needs facts.
    The United States just makes up its own facts.

    'Murica.

  • Meta is waiting for right-wing populists to be propelled into power by self-interested plutocrats on a country-by-country basis before suspending fact checking in each country.

  • Now we can see Facebook for what it is: a cesspool of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tizan ( 925212 )

      Indeed the Cambridge Analytics fiasco was not a mistake...but the goal was to goad users of facebook towards some opinion.

      Now its clear they want autocracies and with strong white men controlling everything....Putin Style.

  • "Let's just run an experiment, right after someone got murdered for the behaviour of their corporation, where every corporation in a country just takes the filters off and lies all the time, every day, to everyone for every thing, and stabs you in the back as they do so."

    News flash, they've been doing that since at least Reagan and are legally required to lie to you about it so as to not hurt their image for the stock market.

    This just follows The Donald coming out into the open with the banality of his evil

  • ... "something out of 1984" ...

    "Two-minute hate" and The Emperor's New Clothes have the same purpose: Proving loyalty to group-think. Trump's constant abuse of bureaucrats is more than a billionaire's rage against rules he can't change (although a judiciary that refuses to punish him makes change unnecessary). It's signalling to his devotees who to hate: The fact that US media refuse to ask about inflation or the wars the US (currently) supports, shows their obedience to government propaganda. (In fairness, that's been happening for

  • Facebook and Instagram are now *officially* a fact-free zone?

    This means he no longer needs to run his own social media platform just to spread lies. Finally, Facebook will have user growth again!

Slashdot Top Deals

Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.

Close