Making the wrong post on Facebook can be dangerous!

What responsibility does social media particularly Facebook have in many of the deaths and mutilations that result from posting on Facebook?  I am not talking about the typical ones that I have read about where a man kills his wife because she changed her status on Facebook from married to single or man kills his best friend because he sent his girlfriend a wave on Facebook, a woman kills young teens after she seduces them on Facebook or a teenager that shoots his dad for grounding him from using social media.  I do not think operators of social media sites can prevent these mentally deranged people from committing horrendous crimes.

The recent events in Indonesia and Thailand have caused me to think that Facebook and other social media sites should take some action in preventing post in countries where they know certain posts may or will bring harm to their customers. Particularly when the person posting is a minor. 

A sharia court in Indonesia sentenced two Indonesian men to be publicly caned for gay sex for the first time in the conservative province of Aceh, the latest sign of a backlash against homosexuals in the Muslim-majority country.

The pair, aged 20 and 23, were sentenced to 85 strokes of the cane each after being found guilty of breaking sharia law in the only part of Indonesia that implements the strict Islamic regulations.  After this event I looked at Facebook posting from Indonesia and found many in their profile stated they were gay.  Many of the pictures they posted on Facebook would lead someone to think they were living a gay lifestyle.  Looking at their friends list can indicate they have an interest in a gay lifestyle. 

Now I know Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world, in the past has always followed a moderate form of Islam. But attitudes are changing within the government concerning sharia law and certainly among the growing number of radical Islamic Indonesians.  Social reforms regarding homosexuality and gender equality has swung far to the right. 

Facebook had no way of knowing these changes would come about, but the problem is they will continue to allow people to post items on Facebook that they know could bring them great harm or death or prison terms.  Many of these people making these posting are teenagers that do not really understand the possible consequences of their actions.  Just as Facebook knew of the problems in Thailand of posting criticism of the King or government they continue to allow teenagers to do so in the name of personal freedom.  The Thai government even warned Facebook of the consequences these posting could have and Facebook refused to monitor the site in Thailand.  Is it morally or ethically acceptable for a company that knows personal freedom in certain countries may or will bring prison and death to minors for them to continue to allow minors to take this risk?   

People in Thailand are going to jail for long periods of time for Facebook comments.  One example is "Do dogs have blue blood now?"  A comment made in December, by a 21 year old college student, reacting to a news story that a man had been charged with making fun of the king's dog and was facing up to 15 years of imprisonment, under the country's lèse majesté law, which punishes anyone who criticizes the king or his family. The man posting the comment could have been sentenced to ten years in prison, but the King showed mercy and he served 385 days. 

In 2016 two people were sentenced to 25 to 30 years for posting on Facebook they thought the government was corrupt.   I believe people have a personal responsibility for what they post, but I also believe many, especially the young, do not understand the possible consequences of their posting.  They are just innocent remarks made on Facebook. 

Most countries will hold corporations and retailers responsible for selling alcohol to minors.  There are countries that hold corporations and retailers responsible for protecting minors from being able to purchase firearms, glue, cigarettes and other inhalants.  Why then does social media, particularly Facebook, have no responsibility to protect minors?

In my opinion Facebook should have a moral and legal responsibility to go back and remove any damaging remarks from Indonesian and Thailand posting and profiles that could bring their clients harm.  The political climate, in Indonesia particularly, has changed and Facebook nor its clients knew this change would come about, but Facebook should now be concerned about their clients and do the right thing and remove dangerous postings.

Does Facebook make their clients really aware that anyone can get access to information saved to a Facebook profile, even if the information was not intended to be made public?  I think not.  Randi Zuckerberg the sister of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, criticized a friend for being "way uncool" in sharing a private Facebook photo of her on Twitter, only to be told that the image had appeared on a friend-of-a-friend's Facebook news feed.  Even Randi Zuckerberg can get it wrong. That's an example  of how confusing or how you cannot protect yourself from leaks.

Facebook claims they do not want to infringe upon their client's freedom of speech, but Facebook has no problem in censoring news stories that do not reflect their corporate views.  Compare the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli stories on Facebook news.  They do not mind infringing upon their clients freedom to get all the facts.  Compare their reporting of the Clinton’s (Democrats) and President Trump (Republicans). 

The popular Facebook Live app — normally used by millions to broadcast weddings, concerts and other personal events — has increasingly become a forum for violent acts such as killings, rapes, torture and suicides.  Does Facebook have an obligation to address this problem?  I think so.  It could devise an algorithm to monitor the live transmissions and uploaded videos of its nearly 2 billion members — possibly through key word or images searches — or its thousands of curators might be more vigilant in spotting and ending the transmission of suspicious activity in real-time.  I realize it is not an easy task to accomplish, but it could be accomplished. 

Why is Facebook not put to the same levels of decency as those that exist on television broadcasters?

It is hard for me to believe that Facebook cannot put in place some type of monitoring program to censor postings of clients in certain countries in order to protect them from their government.  Is it they cannot or they do not want to spend the funds or take the time to do so?

Facebook and other social media can bring instant gratification and sometimes instant gratification leads to regrets.  Some got instant gratification from criticizing President Duterte in the Philippines. Now martial law has been declared in some area.  Will there be people who will now find they regret those remarks that only brought them instant gratification and did not bring any real change to the country’s political and economical status?

We are divided as a Country and as Christians.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Abraham Lincoln is most known for that quote, but actually Jesus Christ said if before Abraham Lincoln even thought of it.  

Our Nation is more divided today than I have ever seen it in my lifetime. It is worse than during the turmoil of the 60’s when Vietnam and Love-Ins were festering topics.

How are we divided well let us count the ways: 

We do not listen to one another any longer. If someone does not agree with us we question their motivation. Immediately anyone who does not agree with our religion or our politics or our views in general are judged stupid and evil. We are no longer willing to have reasonable discussions and reach a consensus on what we have in common and work from there.

There was a time when Republicans and Democrats had difference in opinions on how the country should be run. But, we did not hate one another and try to destroy one another. We had political differences and that was it – simple.  The elections came and went and the losers accepted their loss and we moved on as one supporting the elected candidates. What is ironic is there are far fewer differences in the two parties than ever before and we do our best to destroy each other before and after the election and nothing productive is ever accomplished.

One only has to follow social media to see that we no longer have thoughtful, and respectful discussions. We no longer are interested in trying to win anyone over to our way of thinking, instead with our words we do all we can to turn them away by attacking their sincerity, intelligence and faith.

What happen to LOVE!  Mention homosexuality to some Christians and you will see the most vicious, vile rhetoric come from their heart and their mouths. The Orlando massacre shined a light on the bigotry of some lay and some ministers within the church. For example, “I wish one Saturday night a group of people would organize all around the country and go to every gay bar in America and kill ever single queer in there and that would stop them from leading our children and grandchildren astray”, “They were not afraid in that restroom in that queer bar in Orlando. They were too busy having sex to be afraid”, “My only problem with the dumb terrorist in Orlando was he did not kill them all.”  The list goes on and on and on and the people vow up and down they are CHRISTIANS.

I think some Christians are going to be shocked when they reach the Pearly Gates and find them padlocked. I do not think the words some Christians are using in speaking of homosexuals are the words God wants them to use.  

I realize some Christians say they are  tired of being made into the bad guys. They’re tired of being called the bigots, the haters, etc. I was told by one Christian,  “If I do not speak out loud and clear now to stop the homosexuals one day I may lose my right to do so.” I do not think it is the agenda of homosexuals to prevent Christians from believing as they wish or to take away their right to free speech, but it is their agenda to be able to speak and live as they believe. There are bigots on both sides of the issue and if you do not want to be called a bigot then do not act like one.

At the Indiana Statehouse, Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. of the Indiana Pastors Alliance addressed a roaring crowd: “We’re not here today because we’re angry. We’re not here because we hate people. “We’re actually here,” he said, “because we love Jesus.” He went on to say, “How can government force people to act against their religious consciences — against an unshakable belief that marriage is between a man and a woman?” Has the government ask any Christian to do that?  There are laws about discriminating in a PUBLIC business. The government has only ask that we respect the rights of others to believe as they want, just as the Christians opposed to homosexuality do. 

I heard similar arguments at my Grandmothers church, First Baptist Church of Pratt City, Alabama against integration and interracial marriages. The only words coming from his mouth that I agreed with was, “I’m not asking for special protected class status. I’m asking to be left alone, for crying out loud.” Rev. Ron Johnson that is all the gay community really wants.

For some evangelical Christians, who are led by ministers like the Indiana Pastors Alliance there is no compromise. Expanding the state civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes would effectively feel like a betrayal of their constitutional rights.

Not all Christians share their views. Some Christians agree with enacting nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, including a coalition of mainline Christian denominations and a group of 141 faith leaders who signed onto a letter of support. Bishop William Gafkjen, who oversees Indiana and Kentucky congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, said he doesn’t feel that adding to the civil rights law threatens his religious freedom.

Christian’s are more divided today than ever before in my lifetime. There has always been some that thought if you did not belong to their church or denomination you could not go to heaven. There has always been some that thought they were the only ones that knew how to interpret scripture. But, there are some Christians today that are nearly or they are militant about their opinions.

If you believe me to be wrong then next Sunday after church start a conversation with those you just worshiped God with about immigration.  If one person does not explode like a stick of dynamite has been ignited in them - I would be shocked.  A recent National Public Radio report noted, “Immigration is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and emotional topics in the 2016 presidential race.”  Even among us Christians.

We seem to forget that all Americans have immigrants in their genealogy if they take time to go back far enough.  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned racial criteria for immigration. From that time on, people would be admitted “on the basis of their skills and their relationship to those already here” and to find refuge from oppression. The problem is not immigration the problem is that our immigration laws are not being following by our politicians. The law never intended to allow illegal immigration into our country.

 There are approximately 11.3 million persons in the U.S. today without authorization—without some kind of Visa or Green Card. Of these, roughly half came here on a Visa or Green Card that has now expired, and half came into our country by crossing the border without authorization. The problem is not all immigrants the problem is illegal immigrants and whose fault is that they have freely crossed our borders and overstayed their visa’s without any repercussion. If I was from a depressed country and could get to the Promised Land legally or illegally I would. I would especially do so when the President of that country encouraged it. Now this is the question that will set fire under some - would it be legal or illegal today for the Jewish people to take the land of the Canaanites, which is now Palestine? Would the Jewish people at that time be consider illegal aliens today?

The Bible has many references to immigrants—in fact, foreigners, strangers, and aliens are mentioned more than 150 times.

In Leviticus, God says: “When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

The question of immigrants is complicated today by the extreme radical Muslims. I think the main solution to that problem is strict enforcement of our Immigration Laws. I am not convinced discrimination against any one particular group of people is the answer.

All people that desire to enter our country should be vetted and required to meet stringent guidelines regardless of their religion or country of origin.  I think people should prove they can contribute to the betterment of the United States in the future in order to enter and that seems harsh to a lot of liberal thinking Christians. I think there should be set time limits as to when they must demonstrate they have a command of the English language.  But, I am no longer for discrimination against a certain group of people.  I once was because I feared radical Islamic Muslims.

I disagree with many other Christians on taking in refugees. I am for HELPING and protecting refugees in their own homeland. I do not think as Christians we can stand by and not offer assistance, but to bring their problems to our shores when we already face so many problems I simply cannot support it. If we do allow them to enter the United States I think we have a Christian obligation to treat then as  fellow citizens of the United States.

TO BE CONTINUED

Jihad social media is a problem, but don't fret Obama has a Plan - Another FAILED plan!

U.S. Intelligence officials know where the Islamic State media centers are located. They know where the jihadists' toxic propaganda is churned out that is threatening U.S. citizens and the people of the free world, but Obama will not destroy them because most of them operate in civilian neighborhoods, Obama has declared them off-limits to U.S.-led airstrikes.

If we know where the jihadists are producing the anti-Christian and anti-Democratic propaganda, we should be doing everything we can to destroy those facilities. I do not think the jihadists or any Islamic Muslim Terrorist was concerned that the World Trade Center was located where thousands of innocent American civilians were working when they knocked the twin towers to the ground.

One asinine reason the Obama Administration gave for not destroying the sites is they believe leaving them online allows the Obama officials to continue studying them. They claim there is a delicate balance between needing to take action and needing to study how they operate.  They think there are better ways than bombing to take the jihadists communications media offline. Really! Then why hasn’t the Obama Administration employed their tactics to end the jihadist’s use of media for recruitment, to instill fear and to encourage their supporters.  ISIS social media has allowed ISIS to expand their influence far beyond the battlefields.

Does Obama not understand that ISIS’s online efforts are paying off?  It is a factor in their recruiting young Americans and other young Westerners to join them. Current reports estimate that between 12,000 and 15,000 young foreign fighters, including as many as 100 Americans, are currently engaged in the conflict in Syria and Iraq.  ISIS’s sophisticated use of social media will likely be copied and expanded upon by other terrorist groups as well while Obama refuses to allow the military to take the sites out.

Obama’s problem is he cannot bring himself to destroy the media centers if any civilian lives would be lost. The jihadists are intelligent enough to recognize that and they purposely put ISIS media centers in the middle of civilian neighborhoods.

 We should take pride in the fact that we try to minimize civilian deaths, but we should not threaten the lives and welfare of American citizens by doing so. Obama took an oath to protect American lives even if that means innocent civilians in war zones must be sacrificed. Do not kid yourself we are at war and that is a war zone.

The Viet Cong in Vietnam was likewise as smart. We were instructed not to hit targets with a red cross painted on them. It did not take long for a lot more buildings to be painted with red crosses. The Viet Cong took shelter and store supplies in schools, temples, hospitals and storage sheds with red crosses.

The Obama Administration and the American people have to accept that war is not a video game. You do not turn it on and off with a flick of a button. You do not eliminate your enemy without bloodshed. If we are not going to change our way of thinking and if we are to remain as passive as we are now we are going to allow the Islamic Muslim Terrorist to win. There should only be one goal for any military engagement – VICTORY!

There is an estimated 35 ISIS media organizational outfits that produce propaganda material from "all corners of the Islamic State caliphate.”  U.S. private social media companies are not going to be able to block extremist content and links from all those sites. An attempt at censorship is not going to work.  It is foolish for Obama to think it will or can. It is not the social media companies’ responsibility to fight our war with ISIS it is the responsibility of the government.  Obama will pass the buck every opportunity he has in order to avoid making tough decisions.

Obama’s administration's strategy for countering ISIS propaganda is a little-reported inter-agency messaging operation called the Center for Strategic Counter-terrorism Communications. It is located inside the State Department and it was created in 2011.  Four plus years later I see little to no results produced by this organization.  When will Obama admit it is not working? I guess at the same time he admits Obamacare is not working. The operation has only 69 employees of which a portion engage in daily dissemination of anti-Islamic State messaging in multiple languages via such social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook. They are not focused on shutting down ISIS propaganda sites. There focus is crafting messaging that exposes "weakness" and "lies" in ISIS propaganda that can be disseminated to allies around the world.  What U.S. news journalist should be doing and only a few are every day.  

They receive an annual budget of $5.5 million and complain they are being "grossly underfunded".  I believe $5.5 million annually for a failed mission is too much. The rhetoric they release to the public is the typical Federal employee propaganda - give us more money and we will do a better job. How much did the flawed Online Obamacare server cost?

Not long ago ISIS went to great lengths to produce a video mocking the U.S. military's failure to contain the Islamic State. They even went so far as to taunt America over the suicide rates among U.S. soldiers and veterans. Obama has made us the laughing stock of ISIS supporters and all Islamic Muslim Terrorist groups. If our Commander in Chief cannot lead us in a successful campaign against ISIS how could he possibly lead us in a successful campaign against China or Russia if it became necessary?

The video ISIS released stated, "You claim to have the greatest army history has known. You may have the numbers and weapons, but your soldiers lack good will and resolve." Our soldiers do not lack good will and resolve, but Obama, their Commander in Chief does.

ISIS is using the same type of media propaganda that the Viet Cong used in an attempt to demoralize our soldiers and our citizens. I remember listening to the radio while in Vietnam early one morning and heard, “Airman Thomas Martin from Houston, Texas while you kill our women and children we are watching your family back home.” Yes, it scared hell out of me! I immediately contacted my mother and told her not to talk to strangers, do not let strangers in the house, do not admit that I was her son, do not talk about me being in Vietnam, etc.

In September 2014 Obama said, "Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL - ISIS through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy. I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL - ISIS in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."  Does Mr. Obama really believe he has contained ISIS? Does Mr. Obama think he is winning the war against ISIS? Does Mr. Obama really believe ISIS is not a threat to the U.S.?  Does Mr. Obama really believe ISIS has not found a safe haven behind women and children in neighborhoods?

Mr. Obama is trying to wait out taking action so he can pass the problems with ISIS to the next president.  Mr. Obama is a coward. Mr. Obama does not have the courage or the guts to declare an all-out effort to destroy an enemy that has declared a holy war against America and the principles for which we stand. Mr. Obama has made the United States look foolish to the rest of the world.

Obama's immigaration policies leave much to be desired!

 The Department of Homeland Security as recently as 2014 was enforcing a secret Obama administration policy that prevented officials from reviewing the social media accounts of those seeking visas. If that practice had not been in effect it may have stopped the San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik from entering the country.

The New York Times reported that Malik, a Pakistani woman who moved to the U.S. with a fiancée visa in May 2014, "had made little effort to hide" her support of violent jihad, and her desire to be a part of it.

This activity was uncovered by the FBI shortly after Malik and her American-citizen husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, killed 14 people in San Bernardino.

Of three background checks conducted by immigration officials during the visa process, none uncovered Malik's activity on social media. Immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused to end a secret Obama administration policy that prohibited officials from reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants.

Obama is more concerned about what the Muslim world thinks than providing security for the people he was elected to protect. Obama was afraid the Muslim world would be offended if it was disclosed publicly that the U.S. was checking people’s personal social media pages before issuing a visa. This thinking is more than naïve it is stupid! There is no excuse for not using every resource at our disposal to fully vet individuals before they come to the United States.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, one of Obama’s party mates, demanded that the U.S. create a new policy that allows officials to check the social media accounts of visa applicants.  

It is ironic that Obama is lax, to put it mildly, on issuing visa’s but goes overboard on putting people on a ‘no fly list’.  The Obama guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations.  It gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly list. It allows government officials to “nominate” people to the no fly list based on vague incomplete information. The no fly list is so inaccurate that it contains many names of deceased people. I wonder if this is a designed way for Obama to abuse the no fly list program.

Obama has resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the no fly list even though the guidelines are officially labeled unclassified. Eric Holder, while still Attorney General, invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent no fly list guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list.

Obama is more concerned about being ‘politically correct’ than being an effective President. Obama appears to be more concerned about protecting Muslim causes than protecting Christian causes. So much so that he discriminates against Christians. Obama seems more interested in honoring and protecting the heritage of his father than his American heritage, if he has any.

In closing, I want to include some of the things Obama has said, supported and wanted to change regarding immigration, illegal aliens and issuing visas:

Obama in 2006 wrote that a vast influx of Immigrants could harm native-born blacks – that does not sound like the 2015 Obama.

Obama opposes immigration raids designed to identify illegal immigrants in workplaces. It appears he is more interested in protecting the jobs of low skilled illegals than low skilled Americans.

Obama supports a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. He wants them to have an opportunity “to fully embrace our values” and the benefits of living in America. I do not want illegal aliens in our country. We have immigration laws as all countries and I want them enforced. I have nothing against people immigrating to the U.S., but I do oppose any one entering our country illegally.

Obama favors permitting illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Obama believes Illegal aliens should get a license and get insurance to protect the public. That is a valid argument, but they should not be here in the first place and if they were not here they would need a driver’s license.

Obama wants illegal aliens, even those who have returned home, who worked at jobs using phony or stolen Social Security numbers, to reap the benefits of whatever Social Security contributions they may have earned illegally.

Obama voted against a point system for immigration. A system that looks at a person’s skill and how their skills could contribute to the advancement of the United States and he voted in favor of  focusing on the reunification of family members, even if that meant permitting the relatives of illegal aliens to join them in the U.S.

Obama supported the DREAM Act, legislation that would have allowed illegal-alien students to attend college at reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents, and to earn conditional permanent residency and a path to citizenship.

In 2009, Obama expressed concerns that his health care plan would not cover illegal immigrants and argued that was all the more reason to legalize illegal aliens so they could get health coverage.

Obama's instructed the Department of Health and Human Services' to stop designating HIV as a "communicable disease of public health significance."  H.I.V. is manageable and I do not oppose those with H.I.V. from traveling to the U.S., but I question why Obama left other sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, on the HHS no entry list. I agree with Obama that the ban on those living with H.I.V. is unfair.

 In September 2010, Obama instructed his Justice Department to sue Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for establishing a hotline for the public to report immigration violations. Now Obama says if you see something suspicious report it – and if you do you risk being suited by the Obama administration.

In August 2011, President Obama issued an executive order to prevent potentially thousands of cases in federal immigration court from moving forward if they did not involve criminals or people with flagrant immigration violations. In other words he issued a free pass to the U.S. to the others. At the time Obama’s Homeland Security estimated there were over 300,000 immigration cases pending on illegal aliens that were criminals and had immigration violations.

In June 2012 President Obama, frustrated that Congress had thus far failed to pass the DREAM Act, issued an executive order that allowed a two-year deferral from deportation to the estimated 800,000 young illegal aliens who had entered the United States as minors and allowed them to apply for work permits. I believe unemployment records indicate native born black teenagers are the most unemployed in the U.S. Obama demonstrated once again that he if he dislikes a U.S. laws or a clause in the U.S. Constitution he is not above ignoring them.

In August 2012, Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the Obama administration had “falsified” deportation records to artificially boost the number of deportations for which it took credit. Figures recently unearthed by a federal lawsuit in Texas cast serious doubt on the administration’s deportation claims. The number of deportations according to Obama appeared to have declined significantly (40%) during the president’s term in office which turned out to be false.

Some U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) agents are suing the administration over its use of “prosecutorial discretion” in dictating how immigration law is enforced — or not enforced. They claim they are being prevented from doing their job.

In 2005 the Bush administration initiated the construction of a virtual border fence, consisting of a network of cameras, ground sensors and radars designed to spot incursions and help determine where Border Patrol agents should be deployed. The project was slated to be completed by 2011. In early 2011 the Obama administration scrapped the plan after 53 miles had been completed.

Obama stopped requiring immigrants to be self-supporting. They can now start drawing welfare payments as soon as they are released by immigration authorities. Obama is aggressively trying to boost the welfare rolls among non-citizens.

In July 2007, presidential candidate Obama told the National Council of La Raza, opponents of illegal immigration were ugly and racist. Once again Obama employs his divisive tactics. Obama told the Hispanic at La Raza nursing mothers are being torn from their babies, children are coming home from school to find their parents missing and people are detained without legal counsel. Do you believe that? Babies being ripped from their mother’s breast, children left unattended because their parents have been taken away and Public Defenders are not being provided for illegal aliens.

A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and its affiliates skyrocketed (7 million in one year) when Obama took office. I think you call it buying votes for the Democrat politicians.

I will pose more on Obama’s immigration ideology in a later post.