Social Media

Perhaps Facebook Supports Section 230 Reform Because It Could Make Big Tech Even More Powerful

Even minor tweaks to the law could shore up Mark Zuckerberg's dominance.


Another day, another congressional hearing on the badness of Big Tech: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai are set to testify Thursday on the role of social media in spreading political extremism and misinformation.

During his previous appearances on Capitol Hill—both virtually, and in person—Zuckerberg has signaled a willingness to accept some federal regulation of his platform. In his forthcoming testimony, Facebook's chieftain will go further, explicitly suggesting that Congress update "the rules of the internet": i.e., Section 230, the federal statute that grants social media companies protection from liability for third-party content that appears on their sites.

Section 230 is foundational to the internet because it allows websites to grant users broad freedom to post at will, without having to worry that the platforms themselves will face lawsuits. But it has recently come under attack from both the left and the right: Republicans think social media companies are biased against conservatives and that taking away their Section 230 privileges would constitute a suitable punishment; Democrats think social media companies don't moderate content aggressively enough and eliminating their liability protection would push them to do more.

"I believe that Section 230 would benefit from thoughtful changes to make it work better for people, but identifying a way forward is challenging given the chorus of people arguing—sometimes for contradictory reasons—that the law is doing more harm than good," notes Zuckerberg in his testimony.

Zuckerberg's proposal is to make Section 230 protection conditional on platforms demonstrating that "they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it."

"Platforms should not be held liable if a particular piece of content evades its detection—that would be impractical for platforms with billions of posts per day—but they should be required to have adequate systems in place to address unlawful content," he writes. "Definitions of an adequate system could be proportionate to platform size and set by a third-party."

Those are important qualifiers that need considerable elaboration. For once, it might actually be useful to hear members of Congress grill Zuckerberg on this, because requiring social media companies to jump through hoops in order to earn Section 230 protection could actually devolve to Facebook's advantage.

Why? Well, Facebook is large and powerful, and employs an army of content moderators. They already have robust moderation systems in place for identifying and taking down unlawful content. Any upstart rival company could struggle to build the infrastructure necessary to fulfill such requirements. Even Twitter—which is Facebook's closest rival—does not employ nearly as many content moderators as Facebook. A proposal to make all large social media companies complete a series of tasks in order to win back Section 230 protection could actually be a proposal to secure Facebook's advantage over Twitter.

It's also important to ask what authority would be in charge of ensuring that social media companies maintained "adequate systems" for moderating unlawful content. Presumably this would be some government agency or commission. This, too, could be a boon for Facebook, which after all is better positioned to lobby people in positions of power. (Indeed, there are senior Facebook executives who formerly served as staffers for members of Congress and Parliament.)

Tech skeptics should not get suckered into thinking that regulation is the answer just because Zuckerberg supports it. Republicans who are wary of political bias on social media should keep in mind that stripping the platforms of their 230 protection is likely to result in more "censorship" of conservative content rather than less, and Democrats should consider how Zuckerberg's proposed reforms might further entrench the most powerful players.

NEXT: Assange Avoids Extradition—For Now

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gosh, do ya think so?

    1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an FDS easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

  2. Maybe reform it in a way Zuck doesn’t like? Nah.

    1. Maybe get rid of it entirely then Congress can neither punish nor reward Zuck or his competition. The way libertarians and the FF would prefer.

      1. Just make them liable for every single post. Either they go bankrupt OR they remove all functionality, the audience leaves…and they go bankrupt.

        Sounds tragic.

  3. …Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai are set to testify Thursday on the role of social media in spreading political extremism and misinformation.

    Regulatory capture for the win.

    1. ^What it’s really all about – establishing Gov-Gods everywhere.

  4. dominance? of what?

    facebook is hemorrhaging users

    1. I’m still on it because it’s the best way to keep up with my mom and her sisters, despite it being garbage spyware.

      Until everyone’s moms and grandmothers make the switch, Facebook will still be a force. Its value is in the people on it, not its bloated, buggy platform.

      1. a force in what?

        everything you said there was true of multiple platforms in the past that are long gone now

        1. Yes, but those other platforms didn’t testify before Congress in order to secure favorable regulatory terms to prevent Facebook from happening. Dummies.

      2. The best way you can keep up with your relatives is to call them regularly and talk to them, or visit with them if they live in the same area.

        Get the fuck off social media and stop enabling these spook-sponsored creeps.

        1. Some of them live on a different continent and a little thing called Covid has made it all tougher.

      3. But if you can make them liable for every single post…they would have to stop ALL posting. Which would make your family leave it, which would be better for all.

    2. The solution according to the Gospel of damiksec? Use Government Almighty FORCE to MAKE people buy Reason Magazines!

      (A warning to sensible readers / commenters, don’t engage damiksec, if you conclusively demonstrate that damiksec is full of shit, damiksec will “win” the argument with utterly CRAZY shit, and then NEVER take back the crazy shit! Reminds me of plenty other “Perfect People” around here, who NEVER make a mistake!)

      1. you eat shit though

        1. Even lower than admitting to eating shit, he admitted voting for Yeb! Bush.

      2. “A warning”

        Look at this fucking faggot thinking he can control who speaks to whom.

        1. he’s so dumb that he thinks two posters with similar names are the same person lol

          1. OK then damikesc, post here something like “I think that anyone who opposes Section 230 is an idiot”, or some such… And THAT preceding statement can be WELL supported, as I have consistently done… And I will stop bugging you for being an asshole as far as Section 230 is concerned!

            At the BARE minimum, how about “Any asshole who “wins” an argument by asserting that we should be FORCED to buy magazines, is an idiot!”.

            But you can’t DO that, can you, authoritarian asshole? I would be proud of you if you could do it! Go, do it, without mealy-mouthing it! I DARE you, conservaturd authoritarian! Prove me wrong!

            1. “SQRLSY One
              March.9.2021 at 4:43 pm
              OK then damikesc, post here something like “I think that anyone who opposes Section 230 is an idiot”, or some such… And THAT preceding statement can be WELL supported, as I have consistently done… And I will stop bugging you”

              Here you see SQRLSY harassing, then blackmailing another poster.

              Because that poster had a name SQRLSY was too fucking stupid to see was different.

              1. Authoritarian asshole can’t bring itself to denounce authoritarianism. A request for an authoritarian to denounce authoritarianism… No matter HOW extreme the authoritarianism may be… Is BLACKMAIL! Hey authoritarian asshole… My FREE SPEECH allows me to keep on reminding you, and other readers, that you ARE an authoritarian asshole!

                Expecting an authoritarian asshole to change its ways IS probably stupid on my part, yes… However, warning others not to expect rational behavior out of an authoritarian asshole (and warn them of who is an authoritarian asshole) MIGHT be a valuable service!

                1. I mean, fuck you harrassed the wrong guy then threatened him with more harassment.

                  youre a shit eating monster

                2. “My FREE SPEECH allows me to keep on reminding you”

                  1) it wasn’t him

                  2) your free speech doesn’t allow you to threaten others with harassment

                  3) he’s right

                  1. he knows I’m right it’s why he got instantly upset and forgot he was harassing a different person

                    1. Still can’t denounce stupid and extreme authoritarian ideas, can you, stupid and extreme authoritarian?

                      WHAT a SURPRISE! More news at 11:00!

                    2. HAAHHA look how upset your shit eating harassing blackmailing ass is!!!

                    3. Your just JEALOUS because you are too repressed and deluded by big sanitation to enjoy a fat turd!!
                      Smart followers of my posts know that if copraphilia was wrong then animals WOULDN’T do it, but this is not the case!

                    4. “SQRLSY 0ne” is an ID-thief and a servant of the Evil 0O0O0ne, and I can show that this particular Evil 0O0O0ne Junior is the one and the same as Mamma the Moosefucker from Canuckistanistanistanistan, who recently showed off Her Oh-So-Deep understanding of Christian Theology, but engages in ID theft, which is lying and a clear violation of the “Golden Rule”! The “Golden Rule” being universal to ALL ethical-moral people, religious or not!

                      Then Mamma the moosefucker, and others like her, wonder why people despise hypocrites like them! Go figure!

                    5. Mamma the Moosefucker from Canuckistanistanistanistan doesn’t understand the joys of a poo on your lips, but even one of the pioneers of rock and roll music, Mr. “Chuck” Charles Edward Anderson Berry, the “Father of Rock and Roll”, enjoyed a steaming three-coiler laid gently on his chest. Mamma the Moosefucker from Canuckistanistanistanistan, who says “That’s gross doesn’t know my “Golden Rule”! My “Golden Rule” being a golden shower to wash it DOWN and spread it AROUND!!! Handle thieves will not understand.

              2. I think he lost his mind because I do not care if somebody takes a name similar to mine.

    3. FB currently has 2.7 billion users.
      In 2020 it earned 29 billion dollars in net income.
      But keep telling yourself it’s not dominant if that works for you.

      1. dominant IN WHAT?

        “FB currently has 2.7 billion users”

        How many of those use it daily? weekly? that’s fucking meaningless

        “In 2020 it earned 29 billion dollars in net income.”

        OHO INCOME!!! thats something like profit i guess… and what does that make it DOMINANT IN?

        “But keep telling yourself”

        I’m not telling myself, I’m ASKING YOU dumbfuck and your answers were moronic

      2. FB currently has 2.7 billion users

        And 5 of them are mine. That I haven’t logged into for years. Did you think you had something with this?

        1. I have gone into one of my several accounts once in the last 6 months.

  5. Or just enforce section 230 as it stands now. Facebook, Twitter, and Google are no longer platforms, they are publishers, they have said this themselves. They have forfited their protection and can now be sued for libel and slander. This would be treating them the way they want to be treated, but that would be too easy I guess. It’s almost like 230 was designed to be selectively enforced (like most modern laws)

    1. selectively enforced – if you censor who the govt wants censored, you don’t get hit with the law

      totes just muh private companize

    2. This platform vs. publisher thing is a false dichotomy. Facebook does not strictly fall into the definition of either. They are closer to a library – they host content like a platform, they do curate content, but they do not write the words that others write, nor do they pay people to write the words that others write, as is the case with a publisher.

      1. This platform vs. publisher thing is a false dichotomy

        Because you, a notoriously partisan idiot, said so.

        Sure bud.

        1. I hear this a LOT: Either you’re a publisher, or an impartial conduit of posts; you can NOT be both! Well, this is an authoritarian power-pig stance, no matter if you persuade 51% or 97% of your fellow authoritarians, or not! NO inflexible law of physics, chemistry, or yada-yada prohibits Section 230 to straddle the middle!

          Let me draw an analogy to this black-and-white empty-headedness: Because I (and 51% of the voters) say that your teeth bacteria are either utterly evil, or are pure-white good and have souls, you must either: ‘1) Nuke your mouth once a day with ionizing radiation, or ‘2) you may brush your teeth, but if you do, you MUST find a good home for EVERY bacteria that you put out on the streets!

          Colgate MUST decide, are they ruthless killers of ALL mouth bacteria, or are they enablers of goodness and kindness for good, soul-bearing bacteria! They may NOT straddle the middle, as enablers of free-will choices of the consumers, because I, and 51% or more of the voters, have said so!

          Power-pig authoritarians all of ye!

          1. awwww you’re mad!

            you gonna harass and blackmail me too because I make fun of you and it hurts your liddle shit eating feelings?

            you are aren’t you mr harassing blackmailer!

            1. This is what authoritarian assholes do when they can’t defend their ideas! More news at 11:00!

              1. yes it IS what your shit eating harassing blackmailing ass does!!!

                thank you for admitting you were all i said you were and that I was correct!

      2. Is it a dessert topping, or a floor wax? It can NOT be both!


        Because authoritarian assholes say so, THAT is why!!!

        1. if it was shit you’d eat it

          then you’d harass and blackmail people for laughing at you because you eat shit!

      3. What’s so funny about you lefties chemjeff, SQRLSY and Tony on here.. You’re actually right once in a blue-moon so long as you think you’re preaching the [WE] mob party line.

        It’s funny to watch you flip over backwards / 180-deg on exactly the same issue as long as it’s props the trigger-words minorities or democrats.

        As per the original comment, “can now be sued for libel and slander” — The ‘poster/author’ is not entitled to waiver libel or slander even with Section 230 but the ACTUAL ‘poster/author’ has to be charged. That’s nothing new and that is fair justice. How it is fair to charge a landlord for crimes the renter committed???

        Now; THE major difference between the parties. Democrats want to charge all landlord’s for housing Black-Content. Republicans wrongful-approach is to make a law that forces landlords to house both Black and White Content. Awe; right so if ‘content’ was played out in the ‘racist’ scope we see Democrats are the RACISTS 100% and Republicans are fighting to implement a 64 Civil Rights Act. (Ironically Democrats also tried to filibuster the 64 Civil Rights Act).

        As a Republican I don’t support the 64 Civil Rights act anymore than forcing landlords to house Black and White content. It’s just not an ‘area’ of governing the U.S. Constitution allows and if any moron thinks the 64 Civil Rights act was a ‘good’ thing they need to address their by-focal on ‘today’s’ society and where that path has led.


        2. TJJ, I actually agree with you (on your stuff-&-stuff in this case)! Here below is a bunch of blah-blah-blah as to “why”, in case you are interested…

          Let’s start with the wisdom of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, ‘The State must follow, and not lead, the character and progress of the citizen.’

          Here is the full-blown quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:

          ‘Republics abound in young civilians who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and employments of the population, that commerce, education and religion may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.’

          So anyway, suppose that Government Almighty goes too far, and mandates no-meat diets, which many people disagree with, just like the War on Drugs today…

          Then there will be underground, makeshift, amateurish animal-killing-and-butchering shops, where the animals will be treated far less humanely than they are today! (Thank You shallow-understanding would-be Do-Gooders!!!)

          You will not be able to let Fluffy or Fido wander through the bushes in your own back yard, for fear of meat-hungry lawbreaking pet-snatchers! (But, Meat-Hungry Lawbreaking Pet-Snatchers would make a MOST EXCELLENT name for a garage band!)

          In case anyone doesn’t understand what we are saying here… “We” being me & the Ralph Waldo Emerson in my pocket…

          If I passed a law saying that one may no longer burn witches for killing our calves and babies, and making our crops fail, just because they are witches using witchcraft… People would laugh at me. We got over witch-burning a LONG time ago, so those laws aren’t needed any more! We’ve gotten over totally overt anti-black-people bias, to the point where we might start ditching those laws as well. In their place, enforce “truth in adverting” laws… Do NOT put up a sign in your shop, saying “all races welcome here”, and then act to the contrary to your sign! For lack of a non-discrimination sign, and for bad behavior, MOST people today, would punish such a shop, enough! Boycotts work!

          More tolerance for gays is newer than more tolerance for blacks. Give it time… In due time, cake-baking laws will be as un-needed as witch-protection laws are today! (They are silly already, actually. No one ever died for lack of a gay-wedding cake). Ralph Waldo Emerson was right! Let the state follow the progress of the citizens, and not vice versa! Vice versa causes WAAAY too much fighting, and WAAAY too much stupid!

          1. I prefer to listen to the U.S. Constitution instead of Emerson and champion Individual Liberty and Justice.

    3. There’s nothing in the existing Section 230 about publishers vs platforms.

  6. Ctrl+F
    “Good Samaritan clause”

    Oh, look. Robby “forgot” to mention it again.

  7. I actually find Zuckerberg the least noxious of the social media tycoons. He’s typically only implemented restrictions on Facebook due to demand. And I don’t even blame him for encouraging regulation. It’s a lot easier to have a consistent set of rules to follow than to have to jump every time a congress critter whines.

    1. I would have agreed with you until I read about all his creepy behind the scenes influence peddling and sinister election expenditures. He’s a political insider playing beleaguered CEO for the cameras.

  8. Perhaps Facebook Supports Section 230 Reform Because It Could Make Big Tech Even More Powerful

    Perhaps???? Isn’t it obvious?

    1. It’s obvious to EVERYONE except totalitarian, authoritarian assholes like Mamma, who will lecture us on CORRECT Christian Theology, and then go right ahead and engage in blatant identity theft! CORRECT Christian Theology, to Mamma, is like a hairdo or brushing your teeth… Use the right brands and styles, and you are IN! But then treating others the way that you would NOT like to be treated? Like stealing your ID? Totes cool! ‘Cause Mamma is with the COOL KIDS, and any and all tactics to disparage people who are more honest and benevolent than she is? Her hunter-gatherer instincts-emotions instantly kick in! Honest people MUST be put down, so that SHE can RISE with respect to them! This could be called the Jesus-killer ( Mahatma Gandhi-killer, Martin Luther King Jr.-killer, etc.) instinct.

      To understand more details of this, see

      1. What the hell are you babbling about now?

        1. Can you READ, Mamma the Moosefucker? I am calling you an EVIL ONE JUNIOR, and you have NO defenses other than incomprehension! WTF is WRONG with you?!??! WHAT do you think that your worship of the Evil One is going to earn for you?

  9. Wait, WHAT?

  10. Those are important qualifiers that need considerable elaboration. For once, it might actually be useful to hear members of Congress grill Zuckerberg on this, …

    There’s a better chance of the sun rising in the west tomorrow morning than that happening.

    … because requiring social media companies to jump through hoops in order to earn Section 230 protection could actually devolve to Facebook’s advantage.

    Nooo, surely you’re not implying that “The Zuck” is just like every other crony capitalist that came before? That’s crazy talk!

  11. Democrats should consider how Zuckerberg’s proposed reforms might further entrench the most powerful players.

    First the Democrats would have to actually give a shit about things like that. They don’t. They prefer an economy with a handful of large mega-corporations in bed with the government because it’s easier to control than an economy with millions of small to mid-sized businesses all trying to compete on an even playing field.

    It’s the ultimate grift. They convince their brain dead low information voters that they’re regulating the handful of mega corporations and keeping those EVUL KKKORPORAYSHUNZ in check when in reality those corporations are making them rich while they return the favor by erecting so many barriers to entry that the corporations never have to worry about some small upstart unseating them.

    1. Exactly, for most Democrats (and especially progressives) that is a feature, not a bug

  12. “Platforms should not be held liable if a particular piece of content evades its detection—that would be impractical for platforms with billions of posts per day—but they should be required to have adequate systems in place to address unlawful content,” he writes. “Definitions of an adequate system could be proportionate to platform size and set by a third-party.”

    Oh great. Of course this is about maintaining the power of the big tech firms. The local hobbyists or the church ladies who organize their own forums are going to have a hard time being able to comply with some rules set by a third-party – but if you use a Facebook group, they’ll happily do it for you!

  13. So, this is the 21st century version of “Baptists and bootleggers”.

    1. Yes.


    Facebook is now the biggest-spending federal lobbyist, with Amazon a close second.

    1. FINALLY someone stops being super butthurt and answers “dominant in what?”

      thank you

  15. Mark Zuckerberg has a punchable face. Just saying.

  16. Remember folks: RCA and the large major broadcasters were all in favor of a powerful FCC and strong, complex broadcast regulation…particularly when it came to squelching FM radio that would compete with RCA’s AM radio products, and cable television that would compete with broadcasters.

    “Democrats think social media companies don’t moderate content aggressively enough and eliminating their liability protection would push them to do more.” Aren’t these the same Democrats who support Net Neutrality because Big Corporations should not decide what we the people can and cannot see online?

  17. Geez, Robby. You might be on to something here.

  18. Hey, that’s a pretty neat CGI rendering of Zuckerberg! Oh, wait … that’s really supposed to be him? Yikes.

    1. That’s what happens when you sell your soul for incredible riches.
      The real Zuck is in the Forth Circle being bullied by Plutus.

      1. Says the devout and Expert Christian Theologian, Mamma the Moosefucker, AKA ID-thief and a servant of the Evil 0O0O0ne!


        …for Mamma the Moosefucking Theologian holding forth on Christianity, and HOW it justifies ID theft!

        1. Nobody wants to steal your ID Sqrlsy. Temporarily assuming it to incite your crazy ass for the lulz on the other hand…

          1. Evil ones laugh at their own evil, yes! They INSIST on learning the HARD way, through their own SUFFERING!

            Your exquisitely refined “Christian theology” is NOT going to save you from your own evil, stupid deluded one! “No one warned me” isn’t gonna stand up in court!

            1. So Sqrls thinks he’s the same as Mickey Mouse.
              Are you going to try and sue for being copied? Have you trademarked your nutty gibberish?

      2. See and then also slightly above it, where one can SEE that Mamma the Moosefucker is the same as Evil O0O0O0NE Junior the ID thief (as well as Expert Theologian)!

        1. Well you certainly aren’t an expert anything… except maybe a expert sociopath.

  19. Asking our current Congress to rein in Big Tech is like asking the Council of Foxes to solve your henhouse problem.

  20. “Section 230 is foundational to the internet because it allows websites to grant users broad freedom to post at will, without having to worry ”

    Funny, I thought 1a did that.

    We communicate on the internet today, just like we did with our voices and paper before the internet. This is irrefutable.

    230 is a red herring.

    1. Section 230 protects the publishers or platforms, not the individuals. It is a law specifically to benefit those who run the platforms. I assume it’s popular because keeping people engaged is good for ad revenue, and the easiest way to keep people engaged is let them post and argue online. Section 230 gives those platforms an out for engaging in the breakdown of civil discourse.

      I say let the law burn.

      1. I only take issue with your qualification for acceptable discourse being “civil”.

        1a is an inalienable right to free speech, that means it belongs to the possessor, and cannot be given, taken away or qualified by anyone else.

        1. 1A only applies to the government as you’re undoubtedly aware. It is the government that cannot abridge speech. It does not grant special (positive) rights to an individual; it is a restriction on what the government may do.

          1. Wrong, by specifically using the term “inalienable” the constitution defines rights as “not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor:”.

            Who wants to take them, is by definition irrelevant. They can’t.

            1. This is very reasonably why the right to free speech and the right to petition were included together in the 1A. Congress can pass no law restricting it and the Judiciary is obligated defend, or at least consider it.

              1. Ultimately NOBODY can coerce anyone to give or have taken away an inalienable right.

                That’s the point.

                230 is a red herring. Media nor the state ever had the right to censor anyone. It is ridiculous to have a law that protects or legitimizes law breaking.

              2. Any “platform”, private or state, that invites public participation, becomes responsible to respect all their rights because inalienable rights are carried by the public everywhere they go.

              3. Citizens have the inalienable right to free speech, nobody has an inalienable right to keep secrets and lie.

                If a government or private entity is keeping secrets, it’s on them to fail or succeed.

                They have no right to coerce anyone out of their inalienable free speech right to keep someone else’s secrets.

                Treason is violating 1a.

  21. All of the FAANG companies along with their top executives were strong opponents of repealing the “net neutrality” OIO by the FCC (which only applied to a certain subset of ISP networks and didn’t in any way guarantee an actual “neutral net” experience to any end user).

    Maybe the FCC should start talking about declaring the near-monopoly an high-market share “platform” operations (such as FB, Twitter, AWS, google search, Youtube, and the online ad networks from google and fb which control more than 80% of the global market) to be “public utilities” along with the ISP networks and subjecting the lot of them to the kind of government “oversight” that was designed to keep the AT&T telephone monopoly under control? See if Dorsey and Zuckerberg change their tune on “net neutrality” when it’s their own operations which would be required not to censor the use of their systems based on ideological criteria…

    1. Crony Socialism is the ROOT PROBLEM. Gov-Guns used to STEAL from the people and fund mega-corporations that wouldn’t exist without STOLEN money.

      Obama 4/5/2012 Campaign Event, “I believe in investing in basic !?!?!?!-research and science-!?!?!?!” ….. “Google, Facebook would not exist — had it not been for investments that [we] made”

  22. Perhaps Facebook Supports Section 230 thanks for puplisher
    موقع مواضيع

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.