44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2023 10:00AM
- Mar/30/23 5:50:54 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:51:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request that it be passed on division.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:51:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 6:30 so we can begin the debate again on Bill C-11 in Government Orders.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:51:56 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 5:52:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, “War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, Ignorance Is Strength”. Those are the words that repeat again and again throughout Orwell's legendary Nineteen Eighty-Four. The book is not just about massive government control by Big Brother over the citizenry. It is also about how such control is enabled by the abuse of language.
We can always smell a rat when words are used to mean something other than what they say, and this bill is filled with such false words. Let us start with the very premise. The government purports to apply the Internet to the Broadcasting Act or to apply the Broadcasting Act to the Internet, even though the Internet is not a broadcast instrument. Television and radio are broadcast instruments; online streaming is not. This might seem to be merely a matter of words, but then we go through the semantics and we catch other nice little white lies.
For example, the Liberals use the term “Canadian content” in their talking points and their press releases. Supposedly, the entire raison d’être of this bill, its reason for existing, is to promote Canadian content. Which two words appear nowhere in the 50-page bill itself? It is the words Canadian content. Not only is such content not defined, and it is impossible to define it, but it does not exist in the entire bill. Therefore, we have entire apparatus of bureaucracy that would have tentacles across the entire World Wide Web within Canadian borders tasked to do something that the bill says does not even exist. Why is this important? It is important because if the bureaucracy in question has its powers circumscribed to defining and promoting Canadian content, but there is no limit on what Canadian content actually means, then we give that agency limitless powers to control what people see and hear online.
What is Canadian content? Is it posts about maple syrup, beaver tails, hockey and maybe lacrosse? No, that is not in the act. Is it music made by Canadian musicians? No, it is not necessarily; in fact, many Canadian musicians are no longer considered Canadian because their record labels have been sold to foreign entertainment companies. Is it books that are written by Canadians? No, that is not the definition either. We have absolutely no idea what it is. In fact, we can be very sure what it is not.
Here is an example, and this will send my opposition, because they will be in the opposition soon, friends across the way into a fit of rage. Obviously, the Canadian commentator who is most widely viewed and listened to around the world today is, of course, Dr. Jordan Peterson. That is just a numerical fact when we look at the view counts that he has garnered. I see the rage across the way among those who think he is anything but Canadian. Sure, he was born in rural Alberta. Sure, he was a professor at the University of Toronto before he was censored there. However, he surely cannot be Canadian: He does not use the right pronouns, he does not mouth the right talking points and he does not meet the current government's view of Canadiana. This Prime Minister has described people who disagree with him as un-Canadian. Surely, the bureaucracy that he appoints would have to agree.
If the association of psychologists, which gives out licences to practise in Ontario, does not believe that his views permit him to continue to practise in his field and if a university is effectively banning him from teaching his classes, what would stop yet another powerful bureaucracy from saying that this man is not Canadian enough to be considered Canadian content and therefore should not be found online by Canadian users? The answer, of course, is that nothing would stop that from happening when they give the power to the state to control what people see and say online.
The government members across the way would say not to worry; that the bill does not apply to user-generated content, once again with the fancy, confusing words.
To use real language, “user-generated content” is “stuff people post online”. The Liberals say the legislation would not apply to that, unless it does. Let me read the section of the bill: “specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service, unless the programs are prescribed by regulation”. We have to make sure to read the fine print.
Later on, the bill would specifically exempt user-generated content. This is the stuff that everyday Canadians post every day. The Liberals say the bill would not apply to any of that, unless it is posted on a platform that uses it for revenue generation. Are Twitter, Facebook and Instagram in the charity business, or do they generate revenue off of the posts that go online?
Do members know about that thing called “advertising”? That is revenue. Literally every single post that every Canadian puts online is used to generate revenue for an online platform. Therefore, everything that is posted online is captured by the essence of the bill. These are more weasel words. If they were going to regulate everything everybody posted online, and they believed they were justified in doing so, why would they create an exemption that does not apply to a single, solitary post? Of course, it once again is a use of Newspeak, putting in words that say exactly the opposite of what they mean.
I want to quote Michael Geist, who is no Conservative. He is a former critic of mine, actually, and not traditionally a friend of people on this side of the chamber. He said:
To be clear, the risk with these rules is not that the government will restrict the ability for Canadians to speak, but rather that the bill could impact their ability to be heard. In other words, the CRTC will not be positioned to stop Canadians from posting content, but will have the power to establish regulations that could prioritize or de-prioritize certain content, mandate warning labels, or establish other conditions with the presentation of the content (including algorithmic outcomes). The government has insisted that isn’t the goal of the bill. If so, the solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way and it should be removed from the bill because it does not belong in the Broadcasting Act.
If the Liberals did not intend to deprioritize, silence and push down the voices of some, why would they even include these provisions in the bill in the first place? The answer is that they want to regulate what can be heard and seen. They want to create the false perception that people can speak merely because they can post things online, but frankly there is no reason to post something if no one is allowed to see it. It would be like screaming into an empty forest.
Furthermore, the fact that the government would give the power to a state regulator to alter the algorithms of the Internet is, frankly, terrifying. Who are the shady operators in the back room who would be manipulating the algorithms that bring our newsfeeds and social media posts onto our screens? What are their motives? What is their direction? None of these things are defined anywhere in the bill or by the testimony of the head of the government agency that would be charged with implementing them.
In a world where we are already overly controlled by technology, they would alter algorithms. We can think of the devastating power of artificial intelligence. We know it because there is plenty of artificial intelligence on that side. In reality, the ability of a government bureaucracy to alter those algorithmic powers is indeed an enormous and unforgiving power.
I will quote Orwell: “This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs—to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.” That is exactly what we are talking about here because algorithms determine everything that appears on our devices.
It is mathematical programming that puts those things in front of our eyeballs. Right now, that programming is determined by a raw human emotion: greed. There is no doubt about it. The social media platforms want to make money. How do they do it? They give people stuff they want to see. One might take issue with the fact that they want to make money off that, but that is just the reality. The outcome is that we see what we want.
The economic motivation for the bill is also greed. It is the greed of the broadcasting corporations that want to dominate eyeballs, but instead of dominating them by producing things people want to see, they would dominate them by having more power over the regulator that determines what people get. That is also motivated by greed. Both of these profit motives are going to exist, one in the free world where people choose for themselves and another in the coercive world where bureaucrats choose for them.
However, do not ascribe any angelic motives to the bill. It is nothing more than a dirty alliance between big government and big corporations. Big government wants to control the citizenry, and big broadcasting and entertainment corporations want to control the advertising revenue. That is precisely why Bell, Rogers and all the other broadcasting corporations have come pleading for the bill to be put forward and advanced on their behalf, not on behalf of everyday people.
Here is the decision: Do we want the content on our phones and screens to be determined by the click or by the clique? The bill proposes to have it done by the clique. All the brilliant artists whose parents are not rich enough to have agents that will promote them with news and entertainment bodies and corporations will be shut out. It will be the rich kids, whose parents dream of them being famous, who will be able to go to these entertainment companies and have the ability over the years to get record labels set up. Those rich kids always had a head start; those shut out will be the poor kids who learned how to play the piano in their basements and would otherwise have posted it online and had it go viral. They will not have the political influence in Ottawa, in the CRTC, to get themselves on the big screen. This is once again protecting the privileged behind a wall of gatekeepers.
On this side of the House, we believe in a meritocracy, not an aristocracy. We believe everybody should get ahead by their own merits, and we believe that Canadians are intelligent enough to decide for themselves.
Let me address one other issue about social media platforms. The government claims it wants to crack down on them because they are making too much money. The bill would not affect their profit or their bottom line by one penny. It proposes to keep all the content we see on those same social media platforms. Our broadcasters do not compete with social media platforms; they compete with other Canadians who are fighting for share of voice and share of eyeball.
What the bill would actually do is simply take money and opportunity away from the individual citizen to have his or her voice heard in entertainment, news, discourse and everywhere else and concentrate it once again in the hands of the politically powerful, the well-connected and those who can find favour with the government. On this side of the House of Commons, we exist to decentralize power, to disperse it among the many instead of concentrating it in the hands of the few.
That is why we rise today with such alarm that the Prime Minister would censor debate on a censorship bill. I do not know if, in the century and a half of this august chamber, it has ever happened that a government has done so. It is an appalling precedent and one that should concern every freethinking Canadian citizen.
We inherit our rights not from the state, not from a powerful government bureaucracy, but as a gift from God. Freedom is written on every human heart. We all have the ability to express ourselves culturally, politically and in every other way, not because the Prime Minister has bestowed us with that right but because we are born with it. Conservatives would make sure people have that right.
The bill is designed to take away that right and concentrate it in the hands of the few. Members should not take my word for it but listen to Margaret Atwood. Again, she is no friend of Conservatives, but she said: “All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through—government bureaucrats.... So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.”
Those are her words. She said “creeping totalitarianism”. If anyone else in Canada had used those terms, they would have been called an alarmist. She is part of the literary establishment in this country, possibly among the most well known. She is someone with whom I agree on almost nothing because our views are not at all aligned. However, she understands one thing and that is that the power of words can only exist in concert with the freedom to express those words.
I am sure that she would vigorously debate most of the things that I say on the floor of the House of Commons, but that is only possible if there is freedom to debate. Disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. It is the worst system of government, except for all the others, as the great Winston Churchill said. It is messy, frustrating and arduous.
Every day and every way, it would be much easier to have, as the Prime Minister has suggested, a basic Chinese Communist dictatorship where a powerful hand can decide something on a whim. That was the reason he admired it. He said they decide on the spot what to do and impose their decisions without any debate. That would be a lot easier in the short run.
Often, we are told there is too much partisanship and disagreement in Canada. There are places in the world with no partisanship and no disagreement, and they are terrible places to live. I would rather live in a place where we are allowed to disagree and speak out. That is who we are as Canadians.
The question is: Who decides? Do we allow a small group of privileged insiders close to the Prime Minister decide what we think, say and believe, or do we believe that every single Canadian is endowed by God with the ability to decide for themselves?
I believe every Canadian has that ability. That is why we will stand up every day, in every way, for the section 2(b) rights of freedom of expression. That is who we are and what we believe. It is the common sense of the common people united for the people's home, my home and our home; Canada, let us bring it home.
2612 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:10:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about misinformation. The industry has seen the value of the bill from every region of the country and wants to see the legislation pass through; the only political entity that is not going to be voting in favour of the legislation itself is the leader of the Conservative Party and his caucus.
There is a lot of misinformation out there. Let me give an example. Earlier today, I posed a question to one of his members, asking if they really believe that the government is trying to prevent people from being able to upload a video on Facebook. I used the example of a cat video. The member said yes.
The amount of rhetoric we get coming from the Conservative benches is spreading false information, when we know that the legislation does not limit freedom of expression or freedom to be able to upload to Facebook in any way whatsoever. However, the Conservative Party continues to spread misinformation.
Does the leader of the Conservative Party believe that the government, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party are trying to prevent individuals from uploading cat videos on Facebook?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:11:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, do I believe that the government wants to limit people in putting cat videos online? Of course I do not.
However, his question is very telling. I would first say that it is designed, like everything the government says, to make the people feel small and tell them that they are really only concerned about cat videos. The people of Canada are smarter than that; they are not idiots.
The people of Canada post poetry, music and beautiful stories online. They share their most beautiful moments. To distill all that down to cat videos is, once again, an insult by a Liberal snob on the common people. It is to suggest that they are interested only in frivolous and stupid things that need to be filtered out by a class of much more elite people.
We believe in the common sense of the common people. We believe they have the judgment to choose what they should post, read and do online.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:12:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really like debating in the House, and I am pleased to know that the Leader of the Opposition and I share a love of Orwell.
Orwell said, and I quote, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
We know how Orwell defined freedom of expression, but how does my colleague from Carleton define it?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:13:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I define freedom of expression as every person being able to decide what to say, and when and how to say it.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, earlier tonight, I heard another Conservative MP talk about Fahrenheit 451, and I thought maybe he was about to start talking about when the Harper government closed a number of libraries that were world renowned for fisheries and oceans. It actually burned a bunch of books and other material at that time. That was not what the member chose to talk about, but it was an example of how governments do indeed have agendas.
It is important to defend the freedom of people against the tyranny of governments. However, it is equally important to defend people against the tyranny of wealthy private interests, which is a continuous blind spot of the leader of the Conservatives. When he talks about inflation, people would think it is only government spending that drove inflation. He cites the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has also said, at the finance committee, that companies are raising prices well above the increase in their input costs.
The Conservative leader talks about government putting more Canadian content in the algorithms that show Canadians what they see in their newsfeeds or streams, but the fact of the matter is that right now those same social media platforms, without any supervision and transparency, also make decisions about what people see. He says that we should trust in the greed of corporations to create an online meritocracy.
Let us get real. Does he think social media platforms are not showing people more disinformation about Bill C-11 right now, because it is in their interest that—
266 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:15:16 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we caught him. Just at the end there, the truth jumped out of his lips. He said the problem is that disinformation, like the opinions expressed here today, would not be allowed if Bill C-11 were passed, which is an admission that the NDP believes government should be able to decide what is true and what is false and censor out what it does not like. That is exactly what we suspected from the beginning.
What happens when the government is a liar? The government said the Prime Minister did not interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. That turned out to be false. It said the budget would be balanced in 2019. That turned out to be false too. Do I have to go down the long list of falsehoods stated by the government?
Now we are supposed to trust this same government to censor out what is true. I guess government members believe there should be a ministry of truth populated with people who agree with them. The only way to distill the truth is through the hot cauldron of debate, not through the clamping down of censorship. That is why we believe in allowing people to make their own decisions. Government members may think they are the watchmen, but the question is, who watches the watchmen? The only ones who can do that are the citizens.
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the great George Orwell said in 1984, “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end.” What we are seeing here today is one of the biggest power grabs on the individual freedoms of Canadians. If our leader, the member for Carleton, becomes Prime Minister of Canada, what will he do to reverse this power grab of the government?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, all of the worst atrocities in human history were committed by governments, yet we are constantly warned by the woke parties in the House that the scary thing is too much freedom, that the people have to be feared. No. Excessive power by government has been the source of every single major atrocity committed in this country or anywhere around the world. The solution to that is freedom.
What will I do to reverse this power grab? I will repeal Bill C-11 to restore freedom of speech online. I will make it my mission to transform Canada back again to the freest nation on Earth.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech given by the leader of the official opposition, and I wonder if he would like to backtrack or apologize for characterizing the CRTC as a small group of privileged insiders closest to the Prime Minister. I would also ask him if he would like to define the word “woke”. I asked one of his colleagues for that definition, and I would like to hear what he has to say.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:18:27 p.m.
- Watch
Actually, Madam Speaker, I will backtrack. It is a big group of insiders. It is a big, sprawling bureaucracy with far too many people working for it. There will be fewer people working for the CRTC when I am Prime Minister, because they will have less power and a hell of a lot less to do when I restore freedom of speech and freedom of expression online and on the Internet.
As for the definition of “woke”, woke has one purpose and only one purpose. It has plenty of pretexts but only one purpose: control. It is designed to divide people by race, gender, ethnicity, religion, vaccine status and any other way one can divide people into groups. Why? It is because then one can justify having a government to control all those groups. No more woke; we need freedom.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is one kind of threat to free debate, which is to silence people. Another way to silence people is by putting words in their mouths. What I said earlier is that I am concerned, and I think it is naive to expect that social media platforms do not have an agenda and that as they write algorithms in private, outside of any kind of transparency or accountability, they do not consider their own self-interests in the ways they promote particular kinds of content.
The point is not to say that someone else is going to police all of that content. Bill C-11 is talking about promoting Canadian content within the feeds of Canadians. I do not think there is anything particularly nefarious about that, and there is room for reasonable debate about how that gets defined. However, what I was saying earlier is that I do not understand why this guy, who says he is so concerned about freedom, does not care a whit about what is going on behind closed doors right now with people who are accountable to no one and have all the power and control he says he is concerned about.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:20:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear. The member is not proposing to take away any power from Google, Facebook or any other social media giant. All he is proposing to do is give the government the power to manipulate the controls that those social media platforms already have.
Right now, social media algorithms are designed to give people the stuff they want to see, because that is how social media companies make money, just like a restaurant gives people the food they want to eat. The government wants to take away the power of people to choose for themselves and have government authorities decide for them.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Saskatoon—University.
I am thankful for this opportunity to rise again and speak to the government's disastrous bill, Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which would regulate the Internet and stymie free expression. It is ironic that the government claims to be modernizing the Canadian Broadcasting Act by creating a “flexible, fair and modern” approach, when in fact the bill would punish Canadian digital creators and move Canada's cultural, creative and media industries backwards.
It is disheartening to see that the criticisms and calls for reform coming from Internet and media experts, former CRTC commissioners, and Canadian artists and creators themselves are being ignored. Bill C-11 is an example of what happens to a government that has been in power for far too long. It has forgotten who it serves. Frankly, it has grown fat on entitlement and hubris.
This bill gives unacceptable and inappropriate permission to the government, and any future government, to control Canadians' use of the Internet with respect to what they choose as content, what they watch and listen to and even how to express themselves freely online in a public square. The greater danger of Bill C-11 is that it opens the door to an increasing government manipulation of technology and algorithms for the purpose of social control. Why would any government want to limit expression in a strong, free and democratic society such as Canada? It wants to do this simply for power and to seek control.
Any government can give into the temptation of overstepping its authority when it is left in power for far too long. When there are too few checks and balances in place and when institutional legacy media begins to do the bidding of the governing party, the system breaks down and the doors for the thought police open. When that happens, all of the freedoms and liberties we take for granted in this precious country slowly disappear, even freedoms in our own homes. Government, if given the chance and opportunity, will trespass into telling us what we can watch even in our own homes by using algorithms that will determine the content we see online and the narratives we hear.
This is what we must guard against. Clause 7 of Bill C-11 specifically gives permission to cabinet to direct the CRTC with regard to this legislation. The bill requires that online platforms prioritize Canadian content over non-Canadian content. It grants the CRTC the ability to require platforms such as YouTube and Facebook to change and manipulate algorithms and search engines to meet government directives. What does this mean? It means this bill gives the government control over what Canadians see, what they post and what they watch online. Bill C-11 will also give Ottawa bureaucrats the power to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly, which could apply to most user content online.
The government had a chance to accept the Senate's amendments to narrow the scope and protect Canadian content, but it failed to do that. It failed to do the right thing and voted against the Conservative amendments. Why? I would argue it is because the government does not trust Canadians with their own thoughts and their own freedoms, and is, in fact, trying to expand its control of Canadians online, even in the privacy of their own homes.
Jeanette Patell, the head of Canada government affairs and public policy at YouTube, explained it like this: “[Bill C-11] explicitly give[s] a government regulator authority over what content is prioritized, and how and where content is presented to Canadians, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses”.
Timothy Denton, who is a former CRTC commissioner and chair of the Canada chapter of the Internet Society, said this about Bill C-11: “C-11 makes user-generated videos or podcasts—virtually anything involving sound or video—subject to CRTC regulation. Indeed it is a wonder the government stopped there: why not regulate email as well? Nor does the regulation of speech stop at Canada’s borders. Bill C-11 permits the CRTC to exercise global authority over 'programs' in any language, from any source.” He goes on to say, “The CRTC is all about control: who gets to speak, within what limits, how often, and to what effect. Usually the control is exercised indirectly, but in this case it was overt.”
Bill C-11 would empower government-dictated algorithms to decide what one can see and which videos and sources are Canadian enough to see. Conspicuously, there is no definition of what is classified as Canadian content in the bill, which focuses on Canadian content.
Moreover, the current definition used by the CRTC is so antiquated and so narrow that it eliminates productions like the The Canadian Story and The Handmaid's Tale, which were filmed in Canada with Canadian actors and Canadian producers, or Netflix's major francophone film Jusqu'au déclin, which was made and written in Quebec.
I would argue that the bill is a form of censorship that is more insidious than a government-issued order, mandate, or sanction because, in this case, Canadians will not know what they are being censored for. If the bill passes, bureaucrats behind closed doors, subject to the will of their political masters, will issue directives to manipulate algorithms and control the search bar in people's homes. Canadians will never know what is not being allowed. In this scenario, the government could control what is presented to them and what is put in their very mind by controlling what they see.
Canadian creators would not know the reason why their content is not going viral. Canadian creators will never know when their content is being demoted by government-dictated algorithms. This is a form of technocratic control. I fear, as many Canadians do, that this technocratic control will grow as our society becomes more digitally dependent on artificial intelligence and Internet-connected smart technologies.
As parliamentarians, it is our duty and our responsibility to serve the interests of Canadians and uphold the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. The bill is an attack on freedom of choice and freedom of expression of all Canadians online. We must not allow the government to creep down a path that leads to silencing critics by promoting some voices over others that politically suit its ends.
In closing, I want to say that creativity blossoms in a culture of freedom and not control. We need to go back to the days when governments served the people. As we consider the bill, I urge all parliamentarians in the House to remember our great foundations of freedom upon which this country was built: the freedom to think, the freedom to speak, and the freedom to live without government interference.
1170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 6:31:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want everyone to understand and have an appreciation for the contrast—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
