This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
European tech, American tech, and regulation
tl;dr: what do you think about 1) European alternatives to American tech, and 2) European and American tech regulations?
Background
Recent events
Online ideas and my opinions
More radical
Less radical
Vaguely, I believe American tech companies should be regulated more, since they seem to be damaging society and have effective monopolies due to network effects. And more importantly I want to see more tech innovation, which I think is hurt by less competition. But I don't exactly know how.
I generally think America and Europe should work together, but here, I think different regulatory frameworks and competing tech services is good.
Doctorow's use of CC-BY-SA-NC licenses for his novels as opposed to the more widespread CC-BY-SA that e.g., Wikipedia uses doesn't sit right with me. The NC (non-commercial) in general strikes me as being like the Trotskyist provision of the creative-common/open-source world. "It's not enough that people can share my contents for free. They must also not be allowed to profit off it!"
Or maybe I'm the Trotskyist for thinking CC-BY-SA-NC isn't open enough. (But really, NC doesn't really have an analogue in the code-licensing world, and for good reason: way too ambiguous.)
More options
Context Copy link
Good riddance.
My heuristic is that any time the state whines about CSAM, or generally one of the horsemen of the infocalypse, treat it as a power grab by the police wanting more rights to snoop on citizens. Once you let them snoop, they will find other areas of concern which are also very terrible and before you know it, you have been frog-boiled into letting them search your phones for copyright violations.
The largest problem with CSAM is people paying for it, because it creates an incentive to produce more, which involves the sexual abuse of kids. The good news (at least when this product is concerned) here is that most people are not skilled enough to hide financial transactions. "So you just create a bunch of wallets and then use mixers to move funds from a wallet linked to you to a wallet not linked to you" is not something most people will understand.
The second, IMHO much smaller problem is people making CSAM available for members of the public. It is obviously bad for the victims, and arguably it may create customers willing to pay or more speculatively drives consumers to sexual abuse. But even here you do not need to scan people's private messages. After all, definitionally any such group has an inlet, which means that you can just have cops infiltrate it. And once you are in their chat groups, you can trivially track down the people behind it through their phone numbers. Well, at least for mainstream chat apps which the chat control would target, but anyone tech savvy enough to use tor will also be tech savvy enough to thwart client side scanning.
What remains would be closed groups, who personally know and trust each other, and use encrypted chat apps to exchange CSAM. This seems a pretty minor problem, to be honest. If you institute client side scanning, they can just switch to trading boxes full of VHS tapes. Any car on the Autobahn could have such a box in it! Does this mean we should install xray scanners to search through all the cars?
Obviously not. There are always tradeoffs between effectively enforcing laws and the costs of doing so, both monetarily and to civil liberty. CSAM as a whole, and the cases which could only be detected with client side scanning in particular does not seem like a big deal, e.g. compared to sexual abuse of children more generally. I mean, it is good that it is illegal and we will punish you if we catch you, but the average kid getting sexually abused is not getting abused because their guardian wants to make a quick buck selling CSAM.
But the political reality is that there are no quick fixes for actual sexual abuse. It is just not politically feasible to put any child under 24-7 video surveillance (and in fact that would probably mess up kids too). The relevant tradeoff is how much you want to treat any father, teacher or sports coach as a possible child molester. But you can't win any votes by moving that tradeoff.
So instead you focus on the creeps watching CSAM, and the technology they use. 80% of the voters don't understand tech, and everyone hates CSAM, so that is a winning strategy.
End-to-end encryption is a technical fix which was widely rolled out when it became apparent to the tech community that the state will snoop on traffic to the maximum extend technically feasible. Similar to how the US founders wanted the population armed so there was a failsafe if the government turned bad, really. Obviously there is some push against E2E, and this is just part of that.
As a side notice, I find it especially ironic that the so-called Christian parties (e.g. CDU in Germany) are always championing these anti-tech measures. Half of them are in a church which a mere generation ago was systematically enabling priests to sexually abuse kids. You know, actual children, most of whom were likely traumatized. And now they want to tell us that if there is some creep who is jerking off to nude pictures of five-year-olds, that is a civilizational emergency and we need to bug everyone's phones to stop it.
Monero is easy to use and does not require mixing funds. On the other hand, crypto in general has a lot of friction (even getting Kiwi Farmers to donate crypto is like pulling teeth). On the gripping hand, a determined enough pedophile will probably bypass all the friction he possibly can.
I think the biggest point here is that cops can (and should) take down CSAM groups the old-fashioned way: By doing intelligence work to infiltrate, investigate, identify, and then arrest the pedophiles. It's a far better approach than invading everybody's privacy. The only problem is that law enforcement now have to do actual police work rather than sit on their asses and get everybody's data handed to them for free.
More options
Context Copy link
This is just general man-hating; the women who vote for those parties want the power to ban all men jerking off to nude pictures of women (so that men can be maximally exploited by women) and 5 year olds are just the motte of that argument. Traditionalists (or more loosely, 'Christian conservatives') and progressives are in agreement that this is a thing that should happen and the language differences between the two groups are just bikeshedding.
And their opponents are progressives, who are... also systematically enabling priests to sexually abuse kids, but it's totally different this time because instead of men in churches with an abusive hand it's women in schools with an abusive mouth.
Also there's lots of sexual abuse of children by teachers. Supposedly far more than the total amount of abuse by religious figures. But more kids go to school than church.
Teachers are religious figures. The Christian Right was correct when they made this observation back when they were a relevant political force, but they also believed that was in large part a good thing and were as such unwilling to actually do anything about it.
Which is in part why they got away with it even when the gender balance was closer to 50/50 than it is today, and now that it's shifted further into a majority-female profession, that gender's sexual abuse is harder to prosecute because [for the 50% of the population that doesn't benefit from being able to do it], a significant portion of men don't believe it's a coherent concept, and even if they do, they think that the only way it happens is not actually destructive (re: South_Park_Nice.jpg).
Yet, if you believe the statistics that show this population 'abuses' students in the male mode at a far higher rate than men did at their peak, it's likely that the female mode of sexual abuse occurs at an even higher rate than that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As of 1999, most people who downloaded paid kiddieporn online knew perfectly how to hide financial transactions - they used stolen credit cards. Operation Avalanche in the US found 35,000 credit card numbers and only made 100 arrests and various foreign offshoots including Operation Ore in the UK became fiascos because they arrested the legitimate owners of the stolen credit cards.
People who knowingly download paid kiddieporn know that they are committing a crime that society (rightly or wrongly) takes more seriously than small-time financial crime and that the material they are looking for is on a darker part of the dark web than advice on how to obfuscate financial transactions.
A quibble, but the Christian element of the German CDU is predominantly Protestant, and I am not aware of a large child abuse scandal in the German Lutheran Church. Catholic Bavaria has a different Christian Democratic party (the CSU) which is in near-permanent coalition with the CSU at the federal level, and obviously is guilty-by-association in the way you suggest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here's what will happen in Europe.
A) A study will be commissioned for ten million dollars, providing a steady sinecure for several credentialed experts, that will produce a tidy report four years too late to be timely, that has the right decisions, however...
B) Several start-ups blossom like mushrooms around the recommendations, but lacking the capital to grow and burdened by EU employment law, decamp to the United States.
C) Lacking any viable local company, it is given to a national champion alongside several billion dollars to produce a result ten years too late and too small to be of any significance.
D) The French and the Germans fight over workshare and capital of said pointless endeavor, turning it into a boondoogle as every politically connected company turns up for a feed at the trough, and it dies a miserable, pointless death.
Repeat, ad nauseam.
More options
Context Copy link
I happen to have experience in this space, and my tl;dr take is very simple: EU tech regulation is, historically, productive when and only when it focuses on creating a general standard which big tech companies are required to meet, then leaves the technical details up to the companies. DMA-mandated interoperability for messaging apps is a good example. Anything more granular you can trust them to be too out-of-touch and slow-moving to get right, and that's how you end up with cookie popups everywhere.
On your opinion survey:
More options
Context Copy link
I'd give a different issue: regardless of how good or bad his ideas are, they're clearly unrelated to the actual goals he's claiming to champion. Twitter and YouTube and Discord and almost every company of relevance here are not market leaders due to the strength of their intellectual property; it's trivial to implement one-off examples of their functionality, and building a decent many-to-many implementation is a small business, not a large one. Their strengths come from their scaling capabilities and, to a far greater extent, the absolutely massive network advantages. The division from LibreOffice or GIMP to MSOffice and Photoshop isn't a massive, deep moat of algorithmic design or CPU optimizations, but a shallow one of user interface and user training. Individual people can build cell phones. It's just only a rounding error of people wants that done, to fund it, or to use it once manufactured.
It might be more relevant for specialized software (operating systems, CAD work, simulation software), but notably none of these spaces are things Doctorow focuses on. He talks about iOS in the sense of jailbreaking iPhones, a matter where legal constraints have never been the primary limit. He never mentions Linux, and only mentions Microsoft to say they "bricked" the International Criminal Court's outlook server due to sanctions (real world: cut access to Karim Khan's e-mail account). The ICC's moving to openDesk (also not mentioned, wouldn't have been my first choice)... and having it run by B1 Systems GmbH, a contractor in Germany. A quick google estimates <150 IT staff; having tried OpenDesk, I'd expect <20 full-time staff equivalent for the ICC, mostly tech support.
That is not a moonshot. It's definitely not the moonshot Doctorow's theory would need.
The only place they might be relevant is AI models (hmmm), and then only to the point where there are closed-source, high-capability models that could be cloned and run from EU services. That's not coherent to Doctorow's whole view - "Because even though the AI can't do the 's job, an AI salesman can convince the 's boss to fire them and replace them with an AI that can't do their job", that's the text - but he's not pretending to be coherent so much as tell his readers what he needs to get his goals, so whatever.
((Presumably they only ignore the copyright requests Doctorow dislikes, not artist and writer intellectual property, but to be fair, it's not like anyone without a hundred million dollar business can get an inter_state_ copyright lawsuit, nevermind an international one.))
How's that supposed to work? Okay, the model leaks, quickly. That I can buy, I've been a proponent of the theory that 'the leak always gets through' even if it hasn't always applied in practice. The EU companies are able to clone the graphics cards or ASICs, probably. Can they make them? The current best fab is 18nm, and while they're planning to build a 2nm-ish plant, the current timeline is 2030 and also kinda a joke. Okay, well, over long enough the hardware and training costs get amortized, it's the landscape and inference cost. Is EU power going to be cheap? Regulatory compliance? Legal overhead?
What's the business plan, here? Be annoying?
Mistral's been suffering for a while. It had some sizable influence in low-parameter models a year ago - and to an extent, still has: Cydonia is a Mistral-3.1-24B-derived model that's popular for roleplay, even if it introduces a lot of world consistency issues as context scale - but it's ranged from middling to actively bad since.
One complication here is that there are clear spaces that OpenAI and Anthropic are unlikely to want to explore, that would leave a niche for not-quite-frontier models that don't excel at things like coding but do focus well on other career spaces ... but that is likely to be more regulated in the EU, in ways that impact the ability of providers to provide decent models. And that's particularly overt for Mistral: one of the suspected causes for (some of the many) problems in Mistral 4 was the repeated 'safety' failures in Mistral3 variants. Ideally, they'd be able to avoid regulatory failures without harming core capabilities, but so far the degree models seem to suffer from overcorrection correlates pretty heavily with regulatory exposure.
(Caveat: they could have also just found some local minima. Things are moving so fast in these spaces that they could well turn around quick.)
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, snap. I was sitting on an effortpost on the subject, but never got around to finishing it. Since you're bringing it up, I'll just dump the draft I had stored:
Some of you might scoff at these words if you've been keeping tabs at what's going on in Europe. Some might scoff even harder upon realizing they come from a statement from the European Comission responding to Trump's travel sanctions against Commissioner Thierry Breton, who sent a letter to Elon Musk, threatening him with regulatory retaliation, ahead of his interview with Trump. But even if you were familiar with that situation, when you find out how deep this rabbit hole goes, it might turn out all that scoffing is nowhere near enough
Recently the House Judiciary Committee released a report on EU laws' impact on American political speech. They subpoena'd the major platforms for documentation on the measures they took to comply with EU regulations, and the results were quite illuminating. One of the responses to the Twitter Files story was that it's a nothingburger. Private companies came up with private terms for using their private platform, and the government was essentially just pushing the "report" button. We've had plenty of conversations about whether that is an accurate portrayal of the situation, but aside from that, it now looks like the core premise of that response is wrong. The platforms' terms of service weren't established on their own accord, but rather under pressure from the European Commission. From the report:
Now, some might say that just because an official government body invited some companies to have a friendly conversation about moderating their platforms, doesn't mean any pressure is actually being put on them, but the problem with that theory is that the companies themselves weren't under that impression. The report contains examples of emails such as this one from Google:
or:
or one from TikTok about adding rules against "marginalizing speech and behaviour", and various forms of "misinformation":
Now, maybe this is just a case of overzealous bureaucrats throwing their weight around to push their private agenda? Despite the letter of support for Breton after Trump's sanctions, the official line was that was acting without authorization, so maybe this is was also the case here? Well, maybe, but said bureaucrats really wanted to make it seem like this is all done with the blessing of the top brass. For example an email from an EC official representatives at Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Bytedance signed off with:
Personally, I think this casts doubt on the claims about Breton as well.
The executive summary of the report isn't a long read, and has receipts for a few other dramas like the Romanian elections.
One reason tech companies might form that impression is because regulatory bodies seem to be developing a habit of giving off that impression even when without exercising formal power. Recently, in eSafety Commissioner v Baumgarten, the Australian eSafety Commissioner had been revealed to be sending "informal requests" to X using X's legal requests portal, and then turning around and claiming to the Administrative Review Tribunal that the decisions were not reviewable because they weren't exercising formal powers granted to the Commissioner.
https://www.auspublaw.org/home/2026/3/the-government-is-not-the-same-as-us-esafety-commissioner-v-baumgarten-2026-fcafc-12-gwdak
The Commissioner's argument was rejected by the ART and the appeal rejected by the Federal Court of Australia.
More options
Context Copy link
My general impression is that Europe doesn’t respect free speech the way we do in the United States. For example, in England, one RooshV was banned from entering England (even for getting on a connecting flight) because he expressed views the leaders of England disagreed with.
I think a strong case that a lot of the online censorship (e.g. not allowing people to have frank discussions about Trans rights—and, yes it’s Reddit’s trans rights discussion censorship which drove The Motte to have their own website instead of remaining on Reddit) we saw in the late 2010s and early 2020s was partly a result of EU overreach. Indeed, Twitter/X doesn’t censor the way most other major social media platforms do, and they were hit with a huge fine from the EU late last year, and I feel the EU unfairly targeted Twitter/X because that platform allows people to express views which get people banned on other platforms.
For one, I’m glad this site is here to allow frank discussions. Yeah, it can be right-learning, but considering a lot of mainstream right-wing views are straight up suppressed and silenced on other platforms, it’s no surprise right wing people flock to the relatively few platforms which allow frank open discussion.
I’m saying all this as a classic liberal.
That the worst online censorship was around trans rights is strong evidence that it was not driven by pressure from the EU authorities - the offline push for censorship of sane views on trans issues was much stronger in the US than the EU. Given the weakness of free speech laws in Europe, the EU (and member states) could have openly censored unapproved views on trans issues the way they openly censored complaints about Muslim immigration, but they chose not to. The pattern of what got censored how hard on Reddit is most consistent with a bottom-up push for censorship by the powermods, and more consistent with top-down censorship directed by American lefties than European lefties.
A quote from the executive summary that I saved in my draft, but didn't get around to commenting on before posting:
Other than that, you have national laws like the Selbstbestimmungsgesetz or Ley Trans.
If you want to paint the EU as more sane than the US on the trans issue, you'd have to point to the medical establishment. The legal establishment might as well have been directly transferred from the libbiest gender-studies departament in the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Has there ever in history been a government that implemented any speech restrictions that didn't spread to broad criticism of the ruling party?
Arguably Singapore? It’s legal to criticize the people’s action party despite not being super-pro-free speech in general.
They might not honor it perfectly in the breech, I suppose.
IANAS, but my impression of Singapore was that criticism of the party (ideally constructive criticism) was accepted, but that criticism of prominent individuals faced very harsh and sometimes politicized libel laws. Not bad as they go.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The US? say what you will about America, the first amendment is amazing. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the ruling party".
Edit1: There has been certain attempts, like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, but overall the first amendment has been a strong stalwart against government overreach.
I think the first amendment reinforces my point: it has no speech restrictions. Narrow exceptions only exist outside, yet even they've been twisted (e.g. prosecuting Communists for "planning to overthrow the government" in Dennis v. United States).
I suspect that speech hasn't been prosecuted more in the US because children are taught this first, then exceptions later, so they're generally biased against exceptions.
Took 18 years, but that's a short time compared to the long history of a country.
Yes, makes sense, the freedom is broad, so the exceptions are "the exceptions that prove the rule".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel Americans are far too quick to congratulate themselves on the topic of freedoms and rights. Not only has the US government worked to censor in recent years using big tech as a proxy, it has also done so historically, such as with the case of Schenck v. United States, Charles Coughlin, McCarthyism or COINTELPRO and similar.
If the government was the owner of all major communications platforms, then yeah, the first amendment would technically be super relevant. But when American law is willing to leverage the right of a single company owner to censor speech as being equal to the right of millions of people to express themselves on that companies platform, you have a state of affairs that is effectively no different from not having any free speech rights at all. Which is exactly the case for anyone wanting to color outside the lines of American powers that be. Maybe not by putting you in jail, as is the case in Europe. But via indirect means, such as with the examples given earlier or suddenly not having a bank account or not being able to freely choose an airline or host a website by any normal means.
I think a secondary part is that what a lot of Americans believe doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. And even if that wasn't the case, American media has had such a stranglehold on the public that it's not as if there was ever going to be a risk of anyone believing anything truly heterodox to begin with. And if that were ever a likely case, the American government can and has stepped in to get ahead of those movements. The sheer mass of the American media and political system has been too great for any popular grass roots movement to budge it until, arguably, 2016 Trump arrived.
But even after Trump, TPTB have learned their lesson, are course correcting and we are now only celebrating 'free speech' in America because a South African bought twitter.
1 I responded to that comment below.
2 If your free speech comes with the caveat that any sufficiently powerful person or group can effectively own the public square in part or whole and dictate what can and can't be said then I can only consider my original point, that Americans are far too quick to congratulate themselves on the topic of freedoms and rights, proven and demonstrated.
3 I'm not terribly interested in getting in the weeds on this nor do I see the relevance, but:
I don't see how Trump 2.0 can be considered to have given his voters what they wanted when there is an active middle east war and more foreign workers in the country now than before his second term began. But the MAGA base will cheer on literally anything as long as Trump does it so there's that.
If your free speech rights hinge on you becoming a billionaire to functionally buy the public square then, again, I feel I can't overstate my original point.
4 Isn't that a great refutation of your own point? He didn't compare himself to Europe and make that the barometer. He had ideological and philosophical values! He looked beyond just what's in the world and dared to dream of what was possible. Or something...
But how American are those values? The vast majority of the American elite is in favor of speech restrictions and controls. Illustrated by every other American platform having very clear speech and content restrictions that go beyond any law of the land. That's why Musk had to buy Twitter. Before that people had been getting banned for misgendering people or making political jokes that offended the ownership elite or the special interest groups that constantly drive for more censorship like the ADL. Musk's X is in a very clear minority among the elite and his platform still engages in censorship and backroom algorithmic manipulation.
How about we have our own ideologies and values and judge what's happening in the world of free speech by those? Rather than basing our barometer on what some billionaire came up with or what they are doing in Germany or wherever else.
I came from a country where people are afraid of writing too much in private chat and would rather call you up to talk. The plurality of opinions here in America is frikin amazing in comparison. People can go to whatever public square they like here. Twitter, bluesky, mastodon, reddit, random forums, random forums that had to migrate and move to their own sites. Good luck making another social media site in my country without getting a visit from the police. We obviously have very different viewpoints on this. "I didn't see the light until I was already a man". You are very vigilant of any erosion of rights, or maybe disappointed at the gap between theory and reality. Just because the American people (the elites or the masses) fail to live up to American values does not twist American values nor detract from the striving to have and keep those values. What I see is that an American can go into the streets holding a sign, or tweet it out, or make a website, or rambling posts on Facebook, on most things and won't get beaten or put away in unmarked vans, and that is the kind of freedoms I would congratulate America for.
Unfortunately, this happened to Rümeysa Öztürk. That she was a (legal) immigrant Muslim who wrote an op-ed accusing Israel of genociding Palestinians - I think is just a poor excuse.
Thankfully, she's free now.
I do believe, today, the United States has overall more free speech than any other nation. I think the EU nations have significantly more free speech than Russia, China, Iran, etc. Importantly, both America and Europe allow mocking public figures (my example is one of only a couple exceptions) and anonymous web usage (I'm sure the FBI etc. track you, but seem to only act on classified information and CSAM).
Still, I think every nation should have more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not at all. Our track record is far from perfect, but we still somehow manage to completely eclipse every other country on earth when it comes to speech rights, in spite of our failures and shortcomings. We can call our politicians idiots without getting arrested [1], and in the rare cases when cops have overreached for that sort of thing the courts have shut it down.
1: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-over-online-insult/a-70793557
That's a comparison revolving around being the cleanest pig in the sty. If the culmination of the freedom loving spirit of Americans can't reach beyond comparing themselves to the Germans then the point, that Americans are far too quick to congratulate themselves on the topic of freedom and rights, is very much made.
The Germans, thé UK, the Canadians, in fact most of Europe…
There being a lot of pigs in the sty doesn't change the point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The four ideas are not mutually exclusive, in theory, the EU can do all 4. In fact, there is an existing successful example of doing all these ideas: China. It is in the greater interest of both America AND EU, geopolitically at least, to not get to that point, because individually they won't be able to compete with China if they also have to spare energy to compete with each other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link