7 ms·

When the west opened trade to China, policy experts assumed China would become more liberal like the west. Instead, the west is becoming more like China. [1, 2,

When the west opened trade to China, policy experts assumed China would become more liberal like the west. Instead, the west is becoming more like China. [1, 2, 3] [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/googles-web-integrity-api-sounds-like-drm-for-the-web/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/googles-web-integrit... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/ready-for-your-eye-scan-worldcoin-launches-but-not-quite-worldwide/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/ready-for-your-e... [3] (countless more examples, especially recently...)

derefr 3y ago
China is becoming more liberal in the classical sense (more money accruing to regular "new money" entrepreneurs instead of to oligarchs); they just haven't hit the "borgeoisie-funded revolt against the aristocracy" phase of liberalization yet. Give them 50 years.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  They hit it in the 90s, except it failed hard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
  - Tuna-Fish 3y ago
    ... That really wasn't what the Tienanmen Square Protests were about, at all. The protest were a massive mixture of different ideologies, but the dominant ones were democratic politics, and communist economics, opposing the trend towards oligarchic/autocratic rule and liberalized economy.
    - aio2 3y ago
      And now look at what they got.
      - pokepim 3y ago
        Now they got to be the second biggest economy soon to be the biggest in terms of nominal GDP. Pretty sure they will surpass us in the next decade.
- woooooo 3y ago
  They boiled the frog with the bourgeoisie. For a long time, there were workarounds if you're generally smart and educated. Nowadays its a hacker level operation to get on a VPN.
  - nathansherburn 3y ago
    And even if you do get a VPN, the inconvenience and network effects push everyone towards censored Chinese alternatives like Weibo and Youku anyway. One thing I've seen working is western countries investing in high-quality media that caters to Chinese audiences. It's an uphill battle but it seems like a promising way for us to bridge the divide.
  - _lvbh 3y ago
    Everyone I know uses the Trojan-gfw protocol. Very reliable
- deciplex 3y ago
  What aristocracy? And over half the Chinese economy is state-run.
  - n1b0m 3y ago
    CCP leadership
    - Incipient 3y ago
      I feel like there is some difference between the aristocracy and a bunch of dictators and autocrats. Can't put my finger on it exactly however...
    - deciplex 3y ago
      That is not an aristocracy.
      - n1b0m 3y ago
        In what way are they not? https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2012-mapping-chinas-red-nobility/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2012-mapping-chinas-red-n...
        deciplex 3y ago
        The CPC has nearly 100 million members. A hundred or so people who followed in the footsteps of their parents who were prominent party members in the past, does not make an "aristocracy." To compare this to a dynasty like the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds or the Astors is just beyond ridiculous.
  - derefr 3y ago
    > And over half the Chinese economy is state-run. Yes? That number is decreasing, is the point. > What aristocracy? The owners of those public-invested private companies. The state didn't decide to buy a majority stake in company A over company B because company A was meritocratically superior; the state had a personal connection to the ownership of company A.
- bitcuration 3y ago
  You're in a pipe dream. All the money accrued can and always will feed the ever bigger oligarchs and spreading their power around the world, effectively why the west are more like china in the question. It's already made sure systemically there will never be a "bourgeoisie" united strong enough in china, not in another 500 years. And soon not in the west either.
  - derefr 3y ago
    Well, yes, money always feeds oligarchs along with the regular business owners. The key thing to notice is that, in realpolitik terms, an "oligarch" is only aristocracy — rather than haute bourgeoisie — if they have a collegial relationship with the state. I.e. if their interests inherently align with the state's interests (or they can personally negotiate such alignment) such that that they have no reason to act against the state. But if you have enough oligarchs who don't have such relationships with the state — disenfranchised oligarchs — then they will inevitably plot to manipulate the petite bourgeoisie and proletariat together into organizing a revolt; and will then — critically — sit back and collectively withhold their support from the state for implementing any suppression of said revolt. (Look at what's happening in Russia right now. You think they'd have such shitty military equipment if the oligarch owners of their defense contractors believed in Putin and wanted him to stay in power?) Every successful "populist" revolt/revolution in political history, has had an underlying set of disenfranchised oligarchs, who could have aided in the suppression of the revolt, but instead chose to stand by (or "work to rule") and let it happen, because the revolution would inevitably put them in a better, more powerful position. Why does every politically-stable country — whether democracy, constitutional monarchy, etc. — have a senate? Because a senate is a body made up of (representatives of) oligarchs whose interests don't inherently align with the state, where the job of everyone in the room is to negotiate a group equilibrium between state interests and industrial interests that both the state and the oligarchs can be happy-enough with that the oligarchs will stop undermining state power. China has a legislature (the NPC), but insofar as it is only a rubber-stamp — it cannot control the Party – seats there are worthless as an "enfranchisement" for oligarchs. They want a real hand in power. China, obviously, makes friends with oligarchs whenever it can. But certain oligarchs' power bases are just inherently misaligned with Chinese state interests — in a way that a real senate body would solve, but which cannot otherwise be resolved peacefully. For example: why did China push both Jack Ma out of ownership of Alibaba Group, and Colin Huang out of his chairman position of Pinduoduo, at around the same time? Well, both of these companies now own petit borgeoisie wealth-creation engines — AliExpress and Temu. But Temu didn't exist yet when Huang was ousted. And AliExpress (via Alibaba Group) is majority foreign-owned, while PDD is a domestic private company (and thereby likely implicitly highly state-invested.) My interpretation of those facts: the state wanted to replace AliExpress — a company proven to both support foreign interference and the empowerment of local petit-bourgeoisie interests (that could eventually lead to destabilization of power) — with another company the state could control indefinitely: one that seemingly serves the same market function, but with tricks (profit-margin caps, distributor-set sale prices) that mean that Temu is not an engine of wealth-creation for the middle class in practice. (It tricks you into thinking that it is, and continues that illusion for the first few months, "going easy" on new sellers to get them to quit other channels, before coming down on you.) Ma wouldn't stand for just giving up on the forward momentum of an entire business venture, so he was ousted. Huang wasn't interested in his B2B agrobusiness company being pivoted to focus on replacing AliExpress — so he was ousted too. China's replacement board seats of Alibaba acted to cut off new investment into AliExpress; while China's replacement board seats of PDD Holdings acted to get the company going toward building Temu. Yes, you could describe this as 'making sure systemically there will never be a "bourgeoisie" united strong enough in china'. But you can also describe it as disenfranchising some very rich people. Dumb move, tbh. Or consider: every blockchain/cryptocurrency company in China. Again often foreign-funded, again usually highly successful — but at something that China just can't square with (enabling capital flight out of China, minimizing the state's economic hold over other oligarchs.) In a functioning/long-term-stable China, the Chinese cryptocurrency industry would form an industry body with a lobby, get that lobby represented in the senate, and then that lobby's interests would get carefully negotiated against state interests. In the China we have, these companies are just quashed... despite each shutdown generating new disenfranchised oligarchs by the dozens.
dvt 3y ago
Worldcoin is a terrible example imo, it's beyond DOA. Much like the rest of crypto, no one will seriously use it, unless we're talking speculation. I think that the riots in HK, the united front against Russia, etc. clearly show that the rest of the world believes free markets are the way to do things and it's just a matter of time (probably when Putin + Jinping bite the dust) until China/Russia also adopt more (classical) liberal stances. If you're hinting at authoritarianism, Trump has been repudiated by most, and the Republican party is in shambles right now (which is how such a weak Democrat was able to win). I don't really see the doomer point of view.
goodbyesf 3y ago
[flagged]
- dvt 3y ago
  > and trying to force every country around the world to adopt their 'values'. Hot take: Yes. Because classical liberalism, the free market, and bottom-up government has done more for the advancement of humankind than sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done. Let's stop pretending like all values have the same ethical valence.
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
    > Hot take: Yes. Because classical liberalism, the free market, and bottom-up government has done more for the advancement of humankind than sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done. That's not 'the west' and has never been. The US was born protectionist and pretty much stayed protectionist til today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... Of course today we wrap our protectionism with 'national security'. If a free market exists, then let me know because I've never come across one. All markets are protected and certainly not free. And if there is a bottom-up government, I've never heard of one in history. Can you show me an example of a bottom-up government? I'd love a good laugh. > Let's stop pretending like all values have the same ethical valence. And lets stop making up values to suit ones agenda. Edit: Also, you might want to brush up on your history. 'sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done' have given us civilization and nearly all human progress since the dawn of time. Everything from agriculture, to writing, to the laws of physics were produced outside of 'classical liberalism'.
    - meowtimemania 3y ago
      Many people (both poor and rich) are leaving china, places with sharia law, and moving to the west. Why are they leaving to the west? The west isn't perfect, but people seem to see it as an improvement to their homelands.
TillE 3y ago
> policy experts assumed China would become more liberal No one actually thinks that, it's just the line they use to justify themselves to the public. Like how Saudi Arabia has been promising amazing "reforms" for the better part of a decade.
- woooooo 3y ago
  Back in the 90s, we really were that arrogant. Policy makers believed history was over and we had won. We had just done it to Russia successfully (short-term). Why not China?
  - deciplex 3y ago
    Bold to claim that anything that happened in Russia in the 90s could be called a "success." If that's what was in store for China then good on the CPC and President Xi for averting it. The "integration" of Russia into the global capitalist system was an utter disaster from both a humanitarian and a strategic perspective.
    - selectodude 3y ago
      Russian GDP tripled from 1988 to 2008. They were doing all right until Putin went full dictator.
      - deciplex 3y ago
        I'm not sure the average Russian would agree that the precipitous drop in life expectancy in the 90s, the rampant child prostitution, etc., along with what our idea of "democracy" for them turned out to be - you want to talk about election interference let's start with Russia in 1996 - was worth selling off their natural resources so a few oligarchs could get rich.
        selectodude 3y ago
        That’s why I picked 1988.
xadhominemx 3y ago
Your example for how the US is becoming more like China is… a crackdown on copyrights? Haha
- handsclean 3y ago
  Google’s “web integrity API” is a system to prevent use of software not authorized by a centralized, unelected authority. Even Google’s deceitful claims about it aren’t about copyright, but auth and anti-cheat.
eunos 3y ago
> policy experts assumed China would become more liberal like the west. There are many flavors of liberalism and yes 2023 China is more liberal than 1980 China. If you could explain 2023 China to Deng Xiaoping in 1980 he'd think China would be a degenerate state. The fethism with political liberalism above all needs to stop
- Barrin92 3y ago
  Yup, Deng literally invaded Vietnam and rolled tanks over dissidents. In Lee Kuan Yew's Biography he recounts talking to Deng shortly after Tiananmen, and Deng by LKY's account just said straight to his face "if I had to kill a hundred thousand students to restore order, I would have done it". I genuinely have to laugh when people tend to say things like "I wish China was as liberal as it was back under Deng", people have concocted some serious alt-history if they think China today isn't more liberal than it was decades ago
  - eunos 3y ago
    I'm convinced that what make a nation is perceived as liberal is a function of its relative power and subservience to the west instead of its inherent liberal value
    - kelipso 3y ago
      Especially the word democracy in the geopolitical context, that's what western politicians mean. E.g, spread democracy, this country should be more democratic, etc.
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > if I had to kill a hundred thousand students to restore order, I would have done it Deng was only being blatantly honest. How many people died due do US involvement to "restore order"? [1] I know from experience what happened to Greece and Argentina and I wouldn't call it an accomplishment nor something that made the World a better place. There are no reasons to consider "being liberal" a goal, it's just one of the options, doesn't mean it's the best or the only one. Of course the US cannot afford to not be hyper-liberal (meaning in reality hyper-capitalistic-run-by-greedy-corporations) because it would kill their economy, even though it could benefit a large squat of the population that, for one reason or another, is being considered a burden for the society by the "liberals" whose only solution is "throw money at the problem and hide it under the carpet". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1945%E2%80%931991:_Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

derefr 3y ago

China is becoming more liberal in the classical sense (more money accruing to regular "new money" entrepreneurs instead of to oligarchs); they just haven't hit the "borgeoisie-funded revolt against the aristocracy" phase of liberalization yet. Give them 50 years.

Georgelemental 3y ago
They hit it in the 90s, except it failed hard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
- Tuna-Fish 3y ago
  ... That really wasn't what the Tienanmen Square Protests were about, at all. The protest were a massive mixture of different ideologies, but the dominant ones were democratic politics, and communist economics, opposing the trend towards oligarchic/autocratic rule and liberalized economy.
  - aio2 3y ago
    And now look at what they got.
    - pokepim 3y ago
      Now they got to be the second biggest economy soon to be the biggest in terms of nominal GDP. Pretty sure they will surpass us in the next decade.
woooooo 3y ago
They boiled the frog with the bourgeoisie. For a long time, there were workarounds if you're generally smart and educated. Nowadays its a hacker level operation to get on a VPN.
- nathansherburn 3y ago
  And even if you do get a VPN, the inconvenience and network effects push everyone towards censored Chinese alternatives like Weibo and Youku anyway. One thing I've seen working is western countries investing in high-quality media that caters to Chinese audiences. It's an uphill battle but it seems like a promising way for us to bridge the divide.
- _lvbh 3y ago
  Everyone I know uses the Trojan-gfw protocol. Very reliable
deciplex 3y ago
What aristocracy? And over half the Chinese economy is state-run.
- n1b0m 3y ago
  CCP leadership
  - Incipient 3y ago
    I feel like there is some difference between the aristocracy and a bunch of dictators and autocrats. Can't put my finger on it exactly however...
  - deciplex 3y ago
    That is not an aristocracy.
    - n1b0m 3y ago
      In what way are they not? https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2012-mapping-chinas-red-nobility/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2012-mapping-chinas-red-n...
      - deciplex 3y ago
        The CPC has nearly 100 million members. A hundred or so people who followed in the footsteps of their parents who were prominent party members in the past, does not make an "aristocracy." To compare this to a dynasty like the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds or the Astors is just beyond ridiculous.
- derefr 3y ago
  > And over half the Chinese economy is state-run. Yes? That number is decreasing, is the point. > What aristocracy? The owners of those public-invested private companies. The state didn't decide to buy a majority stake in company A over company B because company A was meritocratically superior; the state had a personal connection to the ownership of company A.
bitcuration 3y ago
You're in a pipe dream. All the money accrued can and always will feed the ever bigger oligarchs and spreading their power around the world, effectively why the west are more like china in the question. It's already made sure systemically there will never be a "bourgeoisie" united strong enough in china, not in another 500 years. And soon not in the west either.
- derefr 3y ago
  Well, yes, money always feeds oligarchs along with the regular business owners. The key thing to notice is that, in realpolitik terms, an "oligarch" is only aristocracy — rather than haute bourgeoisie — if they have a collegial relationship with the state. I.e. if their interests inherently align with the state's interests (or they can personally negotiate such alignment) such that that they have no reason to act against the state. But if you have enough oligarchs who don't have such relationships with the state — disenfranchised oligarchs — then they will inevitably plot to manipulate the petite bourgeoisie and proletariat together into organizing a revolt; and will then — critically — sit back and collectively withhold their support from the state for implementing any suppression of said revolt. (Look at what's happening in Russia right now. You think they'd have such shitty military equipment if the oligarch owners of their defense contractors believed in Putin and wanted him to stay in power?) Every successful "populist" revolt/revolution in political history, has had an underlying set of disenfranchised oligarchs, who could have aided in the suppression of the revolt, but instead chose to stand by (or "work to rule") and let it happen, because the revolution would inevitably put them in a better, more powerful position. Why does every politically-stable country — whether democracy, constitutional monarchy, etc. — have a senate? Because a senate is a body made up of (representatives of) oligarchs whose interests don't inherently align with the state, where the job of everyone in the room is to negotiate a group equilibrium between state interests and industrial interests that both the state and the oligarchs can be happy-enough with that the oligarchs will stop undermining state power. China has a legislature (the NPC), but insofar as it is only a rubber-stamp — it cannot control the Party – seats there are worthless as an "enfranchisement" for oligarchs. They want a real hand in power. China, obviously, makes friends with oligarchs whenever it can. But certain oligarchs' power bases are just inherently misaligned with Chinese state interests — in a way that a real senate body would solve, but which cannot otherwise be resolved peacefully. For example: why did China push both Jack Ma out of ownership of Alibaba Group, and Colin Huang out of his chairman position of Pinduoduo, at around the same time? Well, both of these companies now own petit borgeoisie wealth-creation engines — AliExpress and Temu. But Temu didn't exist yet when Huang was ousted. And AliExpress (via Alibaba Group) is majority foreign-owned, while PDD is a domestic private company (and thereby likely implicitly highly state-invested.) My interpretation of those facts: the state wanted to replace AliExpress — a company proven to both support foreign interference and the empowerment of local petit-bourgeoisie interests (that could eventually lead to destabilization of power) — with another company the state could control indefinitely: one that seemingly serves the same market function, but with tricks (profit-margin caps, distributor-set sale prices) that mean that Temu is not an engine of wealth-creation for the middle class in practice. (It tricks you into thinking that it is, and continues that illusion for the first few months, "going easy" on new sellers to get them to quit other channels, before coming down on you.) Ma wouldn't stand for just giving up on the forward momentum of an entire business venture, so he was ousted. Huang wasn't interested in his B2B agrobusiness company being pivoted to focus on replacing AliExpress — so he was ousted too. China's replacement board seats of Alibaba acted to cut off new investment into AliExpress; while China's replacement board seats of PDD Holdings acted to get the company going toward building Temu. Yes, you could describe this as 'making sure systemically there will never be a "bourgeoisie" united strong enough in china'. But you can also describe it as disenfranchising some very rich people. Dumb move, tbh. Or consider: every blockchain/cryptocurrency company in China. Again often foreign-funded, again usually highly successful — but at something that China just can't square with (enabling capital flight out of China, minimizing the state's economic hold over other oligarchs.) In a functioning/long-term-stable China, the Chinese cryptocurrency industry would form an industry body with a lobby, get that lobby represented in the senate, and then that lobby's interests would get carefully negotiated against state interests. In the China we have, these companies are just quashed... despite each shutdown generating new disenfranchised oligarchs by the dozens.

dvt 3y ago

Worldcoin is a terrible example imo, it's beyond DOA. Much like the rest of crypto, no one will seriously use it, unless we're talking speculation. I think that the riots in HK, the united front against Russia, etc. clearly show that the rest of the world believes free markets are the way to do things and it's just a matter of time (probably when Putin + Jinping bite the dust) until China/Russia also adopt more (classical) liberal stances. If you're hinting at authoritarianism, Trump has been repudiated by most, and the Republican party is in shambles right now (which is how such a weak Democrat was able to win). I don't really see the doomer point of view.

goodbyesf 3y ago

[flagged]

dvt 3y ago
> and trying to force every country around the world to adopt their 'values'. Hot take: Yes. Because classical liberalism, the free market, and bottom-up government has done more for the advancement of humankind than sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done. Let's stop pretending like all values have the same ethical valence.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > Hot take: Yes. Because classical liberalism, the free market, and bottom-up government has done more for the advancement of humankind than sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done. That's not 'the west' and has never been. The US was born protectionist and pretty much stayed protectionist til today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... Of course today we wrap our protectionism with 'national security'. If a free market exists, then let me know because I've never come across one. All markets are protected and certainly not free. And if there is a bottom-up government, I've never heard of one in history. Can you show me an example of a bottom-up government? I'd love a good laugh. > Let's stop pretending like all values have the same ethical valence. And lets stop making up values to suit ones agenda. Edit: Also, you might want to brush up on your history. 'sharia law, tyrants, oligarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships have ever done' have given us civilization and nearly all human progress since the dawn of time. Everything from agriculture, to writing, to the laws of physics were produced outside of 'classical liberalism'.
  - meowtimemania 3y ago
    Many people (both poor and rich) are leaving china, places with sharia law, and moving to the west. Why are they leaving to the west? The west isn't perfect, but people seem to see it as an improvement to their homelands.

TillE 3y ago

> policy experts assumed China would become more liberal No one actually thinks that, it's just the line they use to justify themselves to the public. Like how Saudi Arabia has been promising amazing "reforms" for the better part of a decade.

woooooo 3y ago
Back in the 90s, we really were that arrogant. Policy makers believed history was over and we had won. We had just done it to Russia successfully (short-term). Why not China?
- deciplex 3y ago
  Bold to claim that anything that happened in Russia in the 90s could be called a "success." If that's what was in store for China then good on the CPC and President Xi for averting it. The "integration" of Russia into the global capitalist system was an utter disaster from both a humanitarian and a strategic perspective.
  - selectodude 3y ago
    Russian GDP tripled from 1988 to 2008. They were doing all right until Putin went full dictator.
    - deciplex 3y ago
      I'm not sure the average Russian would agree that the precipitous drop in life expectancy in the 90s, the rampant child prostitution, etc., along with what our idea of "democracy" for them turned out to be - you want to talk about election interference let's start with Russia in 1996 - was worth selling off their natural resources so a few oligarchs could get rich.
      - selectodude 3y ago
        That’s why I picked 1988.

xadhominemx 3y ago

Your example for how the US is becoming more like China is… a crackdown on copyrights? Haha

handsclean 3y ago
Google’s “web integrity API” is a system to prevent use of software not authorized by a centralized, unelected authority. Even Google’s deceitful claims about it aren’t about copyright, but auth and anti-cheat.

eunos 3y ago

> policy experts assumed China would become more liberal like the west. There are many flavors of liberalism and yes 2023 China is more liberal than 1980 China. If you could explain 2023 China to Deng Xiaoping in 1980 he'd think China would be a degenerate state. The fethism with political liberalism above all needs to stop

Barrin92 3y ago
Yup, Deng literally invaded Vietnam and rolled tanks over dissidents. In Lee Kuan Yew's Biography he recounts talking to Deng shortly after Tiananmen, and Deng by LKY's account just said straight to his face "if I had to kill a hundred thousand students to restore order, I would have done it". I genuinely have to laugh when people tend to say things like "I wish China was as liberal as it was back under Deng", people have concocted some serious alt-history if they think China today isn't more liberal than it was decades ago
- eunos 3y ago
  I'm convinced that what make a nation is perceived as liberal is a function of its relative power and subservience to the west instead of its inherent liberal value
  - kelipso 3y ago
    Especially the word democracy in the geopolitical context, that's what western politicians mean. E.g, spread democracy, this country should be more democratic, etc.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > if I had to kill a hundred thousand students to restore order, I would have done it Deng was only being blatantly honest. How many people died due do US involvement to "restore order"? [1] I know from experience what happened to Greece and Argentina and I wouldn't call it an accomplishment nor something that made the World a better place. There are no reasons to consider "being liberal" a goal, it's just one of the options, doesn't mean it's the best or the only one. Of course the US cannot afford to not be hyper-liberal (meaning in reality hyper-capitalistic-run-by-greedy-corporations) because it would kill their economy, even though it could benefit a large squat of the population that, for one reason or another, is being considered a burden for the society by the "liberals" whose only solution is "throw money at the problem and hide it under the carpet". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1945%E2%80%931991:_Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]