Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 10° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Nicholas Lezard: So you're eating lunch? Fascinating

I've nothing against Stephen Fry. But I certainly have against Twitter

Where does one start with the momentous news that Stephen Fry was considering leaving Twitter? Apparently someone, although broadly sympathetic to Fry in general – no, better, someone who admired and adored him – complained that some of his tweets, as I gather they are called, were "a bit... boring." Fry took hurt, and announced his intentions before having a re-think.

Now, I have nothing against Stephen Fry, although one questions the wisdom of someone with an easily-bruised ego telling 800,000 people that he's eating a sandwich and expecting every one of them to be thrilled by the news, but I certainly have something against Twitter.

The name tells us straightaway: it's inconsequential, background noise, a waste of time and space. Actually, the name does a disservice to the sounds birds make, which are, for the birds, significant, and for humans, soothing and, if you're Messiaen, inspirational. But Twitter? Inspirational?

No – it's inspiration's opposite. The online phenomenon is about humanity disappearing up its own fundament, or the air leaking out of the whole Enlightenment project. In short, I feel about Twitter the way some people feel about nuclear weapons: it's wrong. It makes blogging look like literature. It's anti-literature, the new opium of the masses.

Its unreflective instantaneousness encourages neurotic behaviour in both the tweeters and the twatted (seriously, the Americans have proposed that "twatted" should be the past participle of "tweet", which is the only funny thing about the whole business); it encourages us in the delusion that our random thoughts, our banal experiences, are significant. It is masturbatory and infantile, and the amazing thing is that people can't get enough of it – possibly because it IS masturbatory and infantile.

Answering the question: "Why do so many people seem to like Twitter?" Twitter itself does not say: "Because people are idiots with a steadily decreasing attention span, and 140 characters is pretty much all anyone has space for in their atrophied brains any more," but instead, "People are eager to connect with other people and Twitter makes that simple."

Twitter asks one question: "What are you doing?" (It also adds, in the next paragraph, that "Twitter's core technology is a device agnostic message routing system with rudimentary social networking features", and I hope that clears everything up for you.)

Oh God, that it should have come to this. Centuries of human thought and experience drowned out in a maelstrom of inconsequential rubbish (and don't tell me about Trafigura – one good deed is not enough, and an ordinary online campaign would have done the trick just as well). It is like some horrible science-fiction prediction come to pass: it is not just that Twitter signals the end of nuanced, reflective, authoritative thought – it's that no one seems to mind.

And I suspect that it's psychologically dangerous. We have evolved over millions of years to learn not to bore other people with constant updates about what we're doing (I'm opening a jar of pickles ... I'm picking my nose ... I'm typing out a message on Twitter ...) and we're throwing it all away. Twitter encourages monstrous egomania, and the very fact that Fry used Twitter to announce that he was leaving Twitter shows his dependence on it. He was never going to give it up. He's addicted to it.

n.lezard@independent.co.uk

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Twitter satisfies a need
[info]mrdavidbacon wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:27 am (UTC)
What does it say about twitter that I found this article from that very service. There is obviously a lot of rubbish on twitter. I see it more as a tool for alerting others about good content than the carrier of the message itself.

I don't agree that every interaction we have with people has to be well thought through or even significantly meaningful. Twitter sometimes acts like a friendly wave or a nod hello rather than a well considered message, but this is part of the charm of it.

That twitter has become so popular might indicate that people have a hunger for this kind of informal sociability. There is room for all sorts of human communication and twitter fills a need for a fast and simple way to keep in touch and meet others.
Re: Twitter satisfies a need
[info]sidsnot wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 08:39 am (UTC)
"simple way to keep in touch and meet others". How do you know you are not just talking to a "programmed computer" that has been put in place by the people who want to control the thousands of mindless individuals who "need" to have something in their sad lives.
Re: Twitter satisfies a need
[info]adampooler wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 09:10 am (UTC)
I agree: the majority of tweets are no better than talking to ALICE, or another of the AI 'conversation' bots. For anyone who hasn't tried it:

http://pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1

Re: Twitter satisfies a need
[info]mrdavidbacon wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 10:05 pm (UTC)
Tweet-ups are very common, where people actually go and meet the people they tweet with. If you think it's all robots then you obviously haven't tried twitter to any great extent. There is some spam but it's very easy to spot the real from the fake. So no, I'm not worried about a twitter bot army controlling my thoughts...
How about just ignoring it, then?
[info]mokuska wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 09:24 am (UTC)
Oh good Lord. I thought grouchy journalists had got this kind of mindless reactionary drivel out of their systems a year ago.

Just a recap, since Mr. Lezard seems to have misplaced the memo: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE PART OF IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

The fact is that among the sandwiches and nosepicking, people have done real, useful things. From small things like making and catching up with friends, sharing information, recruiting staff and expanding customer services to bigger things like getting stray animals into homes and raising thousands of pounds & dollars for worthwhile causes - often the ones that don't get the mass media airtime Mr. Lezard is enjoying.

Some people use it just because of the egotistical element (it doesn't encourage it, merely channel it. The likes of X Factor are far more socially and psychologically damaging, given what they've done to people's expectations of the hard work-success ratio and what a 'good' life really means). Those people don't get followed much.

There are also sandwiches and nosepicking. Such is life.
Stephen Fry is boring
[info]sheumais wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 09:36 am (UTC)
I signed-up to Twitter to follow a sporting acquaintance's exploits and, as one of the highest-profile users, thought I'd give Stephen Fry a go, so to speak. I'm not quite sure why it was necessary to inform Twitter about his haircut and include a picture of the result, but that was a sign that aspect of Twitter might not be for me. Since that front page holding statement, Fry has inspired a major hissy fit about an article on Stepehn Gately and now we hear he has had a tantrum. What fun!

Irrespective of Fry's bipolar disorder, he is sufficiently intelligent to recognise Twitter is open to all and is not an intimate conversation with those who adore him, so perhaps, if he is unable to accept the rough with the smooth, he should find another crutch for his ego.

Twitter provides me with alerts of software updates and sports news, so it is useful for that. Random musings from the lonely are not useful at all, so, if they fail to amuse or inspire thought, they are perhaps best withheld. Suffice to say, I don't follow Stephen Fry on Twitter any more.
[info]ramtops wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 09:42 am (UTC)
Ah yes - another journalist criticising a service that they don't use or understand. Twitter is a fabulous way for propagating news - see the Jan Moir issue a couple of weeks ago, or messages from Iran during the elections, to name but two. If you don't want to see Stephen Fry's tweets, then don't follow him - I don't. IN the meantime, why don't you go and do some *research*.
[info]rhodri wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 09:50 am (UTC)
Some people may well use Twitter to post details of their lunch. Some people might use it to espouse racist views, or post belly-laugh one-liners, or deliver misspelled haikus, or link to articles such as this one. That's the point that any "Twitter is boring" piece fails to understand; it's not an intrinsically interesting OR uninteresting medium. It's just an empty container; you do whatever you want with it. Yes, obviously the vast majority of it will be boring to the vast majority, but that shouldn't devalue the interesting stuff, in the same way that the presence of 2 million bands on MySpace doesn't suddenly make all music bad.

It's also a social medium, so if you're being spectacularly boring, no-one will interact with you, you'll get bored, you give up using it. If anything, the way it works encourages people NOT to post details of their lunch. Because, generally, lunch isn't that interesting. On that score, this column is spot on. Not sure about the rest of it - but then I did write a column for this very newspaper a year ago saying that "Columns saying that Twitter is boring are boring". I could just paste it in here, but that would probably come across as "monstrous egomania", too.
Oh, that's an interesting point
[info]natefitzgerald wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 01:15 pm (UTC)
I like that 'empty container' metaphor. I suppose I hadn't considered that. Quite a challenge being interesting in 140 characters. I'm not completely sure I've succeeded in this reply!
Couple of points
[info]pooburr wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 10:39 am (UTC)
As much as it is fine for people to like / loathe Twitter, a couple of points interested me here:

'Twitter encourages monstrous egomania, and the very fact that Fry used Twitter to announce that he was leaving Twitter shows his dependence on it.' Just a gentle reminder that Stephen Fry is an open and self-confessed sufferer of bi-polar disorder and it is monstrously clear from tweets before and after that he is having what Winston Churchill referred to as one of his Black Dog days. He even opines his increased sensitivity to criticism when he is low – this is not monstrous egotism, unlike say an opinion piece that carries very little merit as an item of journalism or enlightenment of any kind.

Also: 'It makes blogging look like literature.' – blogging is normally (like this wonderful piece of literature that Nicholas has graced us with) comment on social events, like a diary. Admittedly, like diary writers throughout time, there will naturally be a lot of writing that nobody would be interested in but Samuel Pepys anyone? Who would argue that his 'blogging' has not formed an important thread in the fabric on English literature.
140 characters
[info]wistfulnomad wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 10:58 am (UTC)
I wish your piece had been reduced to 140 characters. If you don't like BigMacs don't eat one, if you don't like football, don't watch it, if you don't like Twitter, don't use it. I suspect you may rather like a few tens of thousands of people hanging on your every word. But with snobbish nonsense, I think it's unlikely to happen.
[info]ajwimble wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 11:04 am (UTC)
Twitter is a tool. Just because it is mainly used for very inconsequential things, does not mean it is pointless. Twitter provides an immediacy that cannot be match by trditional media, or even bloggers. Most of the time nothing that requires that kind of immediacy happens so all you get is background noice, but can see it could be very valuable at providing an immediate, unfiltererd stream of eye-witness reports during a breaking news event for instance
Twitter is not for those with a short attention span!
[info]mummytracy wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)
Without Twitter I would not have read this piece. What journalists don't understand is that Twitter actually gives you a huge audience. Of course, we all have such short attention spans and intellects that we won't be capable of reading a whole article, let alone understand it.
Stephen Fry
[info]oomigoolies wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 11:33 am (UTC)
God, I've had him up to here. And now his infantile whining because someone has the balls to say he's boring.

If only there were some way he could be absorbed into the Twit-ether, and never drone on to us again.
Re: Stephen Fry
[info]cathcrich wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC)
Yes, I too found this piece on Twitter. Journalists who have never used Twitter should be banned by editors from writing about it, because all they do is trot out the same cliches about how boring it is to read about what people had for lunch. Twitter is full of funny, insightful, intelligent and well informed people. It's not hard to find them, and if Lezard hadn't been too lazy to do a few minutes research on Twitter he could have found this out for himself. And by the way, oomigoolies, there is a way for Stephen Fry to be absorbed into the Twit-ether if that's what you want. It's called the unfollow button.
Re: Stephen Fry
[info]oomigoolies wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 04:24 pm (UTC)
Oh dear. For the bears of little brain:

I have never been on Twitter in my life, nor wish to.

I am pissed off with having Stephen Fry metaphorically shoved up my nose on TV, radio and now in the press. If you bothered to read my post you might just have gathered this.

I have my opinion of those who use Twitter, but that's not fit for publication. But sadly you seem a typical user...
To sum up
[info]natefitzgerald wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 01:09 pm (UTC)
Ironically, that entire article could have summed up in a Tweet: I don't like Twitter; it's banal and superficial.

I agree with the sentiment, of course, but I'm not sure the author had to bash us bloggers!

http://love-of-turnips.blogspot.com/
Spot on.
[info]mountainhop wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 01:10 pm (UTC)
It has it's uses but those that espouse it's excellence should undoubtedly be DOING SOMETHING ELSE INSTEAD OF TWEETING. The Americans (even if by mistake) have it right with their suggestion re. being twatted.

Use it on the bus home or the tube to work by all means (if you can't deal with the real world around you) but the fact is that you shouldn't be using it while in that meeting, during Commons debates (you shower of MPs), at School, etc etc. If I'm giving a lecture (or whatever) and you're tweeting then I find that exceptionally rude and it's just another example of the wonderful society we now live in. Fry, Sarah Brown et al obviously have far too much time on their hands and don't really need to work so can tweet to their heart's content.

I, for one, am fed up with this moronic slide into technological aural contraceptives (mobiles, iPods, tweeting etc etc) and the anti-social behaviour it's promoting - top marks for the author of this article.
worth it all for this...
[info]contrastcolour wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 01:20 pm (UTC)
"seriously, the Americans have proposed that "twatted" should be the past participle of "tweet", which is the only funny thing about the whole business"

Okay.... I think Twitter is an abomination and should die a swift (though hopefully painful) death.

But... that the Americans want to talk seriously about being "twatted" is worth it all... I can just imagine the conversations, and the listening-in Brit trying to hold back the laughter...
The fault lies within our reality, not our tweets
[info]deenadajani wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 01:20 pm (UTC)
Lezard’s oversimplification of twitter and its users is alarming. Whilst some users may think it is significant to let the world know what they are having for lunch, such ‘inconsequential rubbish’ (to use Lezard’s phrasing) reflects the state of human thought in the world – it does not create it.

And just as twitter reflects (possibly) the most banal of human ‘thought’, it also allows spaces for those who seek to further knowledge and spread information faster and more efficiently. Had Lezard been on twitter at the time of the recent Iranian uprising he would have been part of a very cosmopolitan, and inspiring, exchange of tweets; information and ideas were both in abundant supply.

Many users today use their twitter accounts as information portals. Blaming twitter for “Centuries of human thought and experience drowned out in a maelstrom of inconsequential rubbish” is ridiculous. The fault lies within our reality, not our tweets.
The problem with content-free services like Twitter...
[info]jimmity_squiff wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:30 pm (UTC)
...is that they're only interesting when you write interesting content ? 'content-free', get it?

By the same metric, one could easily say that word processing software is boring, although having read what Lezard uses it for, that would be a very easy conclusion to draw.
Choking on irony
[info]pete_darby wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:26 pm (UTC)
I don't believe I will ever tire of opinion columnists writing 300+ words on how terrible it is that people waste time telling each other their opinions....
Twitter + The Indie
[info]mjbarker wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:31 pm (UTC)
In one room at The Independent, Mr Lezard is harumphing about something he's never used, in another, actual journalists are researching stories, canvassing opinion, looking for interviewees and photographers, all on Twitter.

I know it's tough to write X amount of words per day/week, but really...
[info]lordcowin wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:31 pm (UTC)
This article is not only drivel on par with sandwhich commentary but has the stench of journalistic fear. I would carry on but my 140 is up.
Twitter helped with Iran
[info]colettejane wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:33 pm (UTC)
It was twitter that helped to add a bit more democracy into Iran during the recent elcetion scandal. Teh goverenment tried to completely censor the media, but users of twitter, campaigned, showed their disgust and heightened the publicity of the scandal. To those who don't want to know that stephen fry is eating a sandwich they do not have to follow hi on twitter, you chose who you follow, and i want to follow someone that updates me about their eating habits then so be, but for the widr picture twitter is very useful.
It has it's uses
[info]macrs4 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:36 pm (UTC)
This article sounds like it's been written by somebody who doesn't really understand Twitter. Sure there's a lot of boring tweets out there, with people tweeting about stuff that's irrelevant, but it's also capable of being an incredibly powerful tool if you mine it for information properly.

In my industry it helps me tie up with other people in a similar field, share issues/ideas/thoughts etc. And of course to tweet inane drivel at them whenever I see fit. Fortunately the positive far outweighs the negative in my opinion.

You don't have to follow people who don't say things you find interesting. You don't have to follow anybody at all. It's choice. You have one.

http://www.markc.me.uk/MarkC/Blog/Entries/2009/9/7_Twitter_Whats_that_all_about.html

As to be being a negative to people - I guess it can to people that get obsessive about such things. For the average well balanced individual though it's just another tool to use in their daily lives.

[info]imedwinchester wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:42 pm (UTC)
I also came across this article via Twitter. I use it as a news source, choosing to follow a small number of people (often bloggers) whose tweets tend to be links to articles etc which I find interesting and which I would otherwise not have read. You cannot blame Twitter itself if some people choose to use it to describe what they had for lunch.
[info]harryengland wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:58 pm (UTC)
I agree with most of the negative feedback on this article, just wanted to add that complaining about people being boring or whatever is a bit stupid, as the user chooses who to follow. Even if you do come across what somebody is eating for lunch (to use that popular cliché), it takes two seconds of your life and then you can forget about it, you don't have to resort to writing unimaginative articles such as this.
what a load of rubbish...
[info]cupovtay wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 02:58 pm (UTC)
the article that is, not twitter. Change the record. Its just another social networking site, get over it or just leave it be. I'm tired of reading bad press about these sites. Yes, they have their faults with security for children etc but the only way that will ever be stopped is by parents or adults acting responisbly and not let these children abuse the feautures of such sites. They are widely popular across the globe and I don't see how some people can get so eaten up by them that they can be bothered to sit and write such a long article. Oh hold on... was all this just another tick in your box to make sure you get your paycheck this month?
NeoplasmSix
[info]neoplasmsix wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 03:33 pm (UTC)
As others have said.. Twitter is simply a tool.. whereas the author of hit piece is a simple tool
Social-Networking is BUSINESS
[info]pezinho wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 03:38 pm (UTC)
Firstly, of course Twitter is not literature, I dont think anyone is proclaiming that it is.

The rapid technological revolution of this Millenium, along with globalisation, has made the world in which we live in today a lot smaller. Social-networking has surpassed the fad stage and has become a multi-million pound / dollar industry.

Myspace and YouTube have provided a platform for unsigned musicians, artists, comedians and film-makers etc to express themselves literally instantly. Gone are the days where creative types have to wait for the industry to come to them. Facebook makes it easier to re-connect with people that you may have lost touch with. It adopted the Friends Re-united platform and turned it into a huge business. Twitter allows us to connect with others with simple, brief statements (using Facebook's 'Status bar' idea) about what we are doing, what music and films we recommend etc

For 99% of social-networking users, it is just a bit of fun. The fact that the entertainment industries have harnessed these sites and use them brilliantly to get their product seen by a huge potential market, should tell you that social-networking also has a substance, value, potential and credibility - none of which feature in your article.

By the way, I would recommend looking at this page - https://twitter.com/TheIndyNews
Missed the point much?
[info]forehead119 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 05:28 pm (UTC)
I concede that some of twitter is just people updating the world about their bowel movements but there are a few people who can write something profound and inspirational with 140 characters. You however have used a lot more and all that has come out is un-informed dribble. Please don't judge people just because they aren't as narrow minded as you.
Oh dear...
[info]philbradley wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 07:50 pm (UTC)
Yet another journalist with nothing to say and a column to fill. What better way than to pick on Twitter, and of course there's no need to actually investigate the resource, when there's so much ill informed, inaccurate vitriol to hack from.

Twitter can indeed be all the things that you say it can, but then so can the net generally. However, it's not the resource itself, it's the way that it's put to use. I use Twitter to keep up to date with news headlines, I ask questions, answer questions, find out if a site is up or down, check out information on hoaxes and viruses. I keep in contact with other professionals, follow conferences that I'm unable to attend myself, identify experts in particular areas, locate interesting articles to read, videos to check out, infantile journalistic articles to laugh at - a whole host of different uses. And not once do I see the 'what I'm having for breakfast' type posts - because the people that I follow don't tweet that nonsense. If they do, then I stop following them.

I really would suggest that Mr Lezard actually tries to use Twitter for 24 hours with an open and unbiased approach; I suspect that he'll then feel rather foolish reading back over this inaccurate and illinformed piece of nonsensical fluff.
Lazy, dull journalism.
[info]lachance680 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 09:46 pm (UTC)
TMZ broke the news about Michael Jackson's death mostly via twitter. Jan Moir's article received 23,000 complaints largely because of Twitter. Twitter was the main way of communicating with the outside world from within Iran during the election period. Twitter has it's uses.

Not every tweet will be exciting or interesting, much like this article about twitter is possibly one of the most boring I've ever read. If you deem it newsworthy, it must be worth something, no? Or you're just a very shoddy, lazy journalist.

And how someone with such an air of superiority as yours dares to deem anything else masturbatory is beyond me. I would bet that when you finished typing this "report" you had to reach for a box of tissues.
Lazy, dull journalism. (cont)
[info]lachance680 wrote:
Monday, 2 November 2009 at 09:51 pm (UTC)
I must also say I love the irony of you writing 9 paragraphs about how you read twitter and what you thought of it. In effect, you've just tweeted in a really longwinded fashion. Had this been in 140 characters or less, it would have been tiresome. As is, it's verging on coma-inducing. Report real news, please.
OMG!
[info]hesspartacus wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 09:21 am (UTC)
PMSL, nay, ROFLMFAO.

Epic fail.

LOL.
Please swap the word Twitter for [InsertNewTechnologyHere]
[info]seanbam wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC)
I think this argument has been played out over every new technology between now and that time the wheel was deemed useless and inconsequential. In other words, you could fit this entire article into 140 characters or less by simply saying "Get off my Lawn"

People use it and they like it. It's not dangerous. That's all there is to know.
[info]peteboov wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 07:54 pm (UTC)
Couldn't you have made that a bit... shorter?
If I've got this right...
[info]rockinrog wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:41 pm (UTC)
It's OK to use Twitter to express your opinion, but not OK to use a newspaper column to do the same, particularly if you happen to think Twitter is a waste of space. How does that work exactly? Or is everyone just a tad jealous that Lezard gets paid to voice his opinions whereas most Twats don't? To be fair to Twats, the telephone is also used to change the course of history, but is mostly used to tell people where you are and what you are doing in mind-numbing detail. The tech is not the problem, the people are. For every Iran, there are a lot of "I'm in the pub" posts going on. Facebook is the same. As for "I don't agre that every interaction... has to be well thought through," my head is in my hands.
It's just a tool
[info]barstepuk wrote:
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 at 10:56 pm (UTC)
Twitter is a tool that has many uses - like a hammer or a pen. You don't discard the hammer when you occasionally hit your thumb or despise the pen because people scribble meaningless doodles to pass the time in a boring meeting.
Twitter is useful to those who find it useful and engaging. If you don't know how to use it, and you clearly don't, don't knock it. @barstep
Twatted - yes you were
[info]captsenseless wrote:
Wednesday, 4 November 2009 at 11:49 pm (UTC)
Now let me get this straight, I find value in Twitter therefore I am an idiot with a steadily decreasing attention span. Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion and would not be the first to call me an idiot but the irony is that the idiots are just about to replace you. Power to the errrr.... sorry got to stop now as I am way over my 140 characters and my brain has had a melt down.

Mr Lezard, whilst I suspect that it will fall on deaf ears, I would suggest you do well to stop being such a pompous patronizing twat.

Columnist Comments

dominic_lawson

Dominic Lawson: Why the British will never love Europe

'The Continent' we called it, knowing we were not of it

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Incentives that work the wrong way

London Metropolitan University is a very far cry indeed from Oxbridge

thomas_sutcliffe

Tom Sutcliffe: Should we pay double to save the bookshop?

A civilized city without bookshops struck me as a contradiction in terms


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion