Connect with us

News

Meta shift from fact-checking to crowdsourcing spotlights competing approaches in fight against misinformation and hate speech

Published

on

Meta
Meta stirred up controversy when it ditched fact-checking. Chesnot/Getty Images

Anjana Susarla, Michigan State University

Meta’s decision to change its content moderation policies by replacing centralized fact-checking teams with user-generated community labeling has stirred up a storm of reactions. But taken at face value, the changes raise the question of the effectiveness of Meta’s old policy, fact-checking, and its new one, community comments.

With billions of people worldwide accessing their services, platforms such as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram have a responsibility to ensure that users are not harmed by consumer fraud, hate speech, misinformation or other online ills. Given the scale of this problem, combating online harms is a serious societal challenge. Content moderation plays a role in addressing these online harms.

Moderating content involves three steps. The first is scanning online content – typically, social media posts – to detect potentially harmful words or images. The second is assessing whether the flagged content violates the law or the platform’s terms of service. The third is intervening in some way. Interventions include removing posts, adding warning labels to posts, and diminishing how much a post can be seen or shared.

Content moderation can range from user-driven moderation models on community-based platforms such as Wikipedia to centralized content moderation models such as those used by Instagram. Research shows that both approaches are a mixed bag.

Does fact-checking work?

Meta’s previous content moderation policy relied on third-party fact-checking organizations, which brought problematic content to the attention of Meta staff. Meta’s U.S. fact-checking organizations were AFP USA, Check Your Fact, Factcheck.org, Lead Stories, PolitiFact, Science Feedback, Reuters Fact Check, TelevisaUnivision, The Dispatch and USA TODAY.

Fact-checking relies on impartial expert review. Research shows that it can reduce the effects of misinformation but is not a cure-all. Also, fact-checking’s effectiveness depends on whether users perceive the role of fact-checkers and the nature of fact-checking organizations as trustworthy.

Crowdsourced content moderation

In his announcement, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg highlighted that content moderation at Meta would shift to a community notes model similar to X, formerly Twitter. X’s community notes is a crowdsourced fact-checking approach that allows users to write notes to inform others about potentially misleading posts.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

Studies are mixed on the effectiveness of X-style content moderation efforts. A large-scale study found little evidence that the introduction of community notes significantly reduced engagement with misleading tweets on X. Rather, it appears that such crowd-based efforts might be too slow to effectively reduce engagement with misinformation in the early and most viral stage of its spread.

There have been some successes from quality certifications and badges on platforms. However, community-provided labels might not be effective in reducing engagement with misinformation, especially when they’re not accompanied by appropriate training about labeling for a platform’s users. Research also shows that X’s Community Notes is subject to partisan bias.

Crowdsourced initiatives such as the community-edited online reference Wikipedia depend on peer feedback and rely on having a robust system of contributors. As I have written before, a Wikipedia-style model needs strong mechanisms of community governance to ensure that individual volunteers follow consistent guidelines when they authenticate and fact-check posts. People could game the system in a coordinated manner and up-vote interesting and compelling but unverified content. https://www.youtube.com/embed/HsV6DHmC8UA?wmode=transparent&start=0 Misinformation researcher Renée DiResta analyzes Meta’s change in content moderation policy.

Content moderation and consumer harms

A safe and trustworthy online space is akin to a public good, but without motivated people willing to invest effort for the greater common good, the overall user experience could suffer.

Algorithms on social media platforms aim to maximize engagement. However, given that policies that encourage engagement can also result in harm, content moderation also plays a role in consumer safety and product liability.

This aspect of content moderation has implications for businesses that either use Meta for advertising or to connect with their consumers. Content moderation is also a brand safety issue because platforms have to balance their desire to keep the social media environment safer against that of greater engagement.

AI content everywhere

Content moderation is likely to be further strained by growing amounts of content generated by artificial intelligence tools. AI detection tools are flawed, and developments in generative AI are challenging people’s ability to differentiate between human-generated and AI-generated content.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

In January 2023, for example, OpenAI launched a classifier that was supposed to differentiate between texts generated by humans and those generated by AI. However, the company discontinued the tool in July 2023 due to its low accuracy.

There is potential for a flood of inauthentic accounts – AI bots – that exploit algorithmic and human vulnerabilities to monetize false and harmful content. For example, they could commit fraud and manipulate opinions for economic or political gain.

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT make it easier to create large volumes of realistic-looking social media profiles and content. AI-generated content primed for engagement can also exhibit significant biases, such as race and gender. In fact, Meta faced a backlash for its own AI-generated profiles, with commentators labeling it “AI-generated slop.”

More than moderation

Regardless of the type of content moderation, the practice alone is not effective at reducing belief in misinformation or at limiting its spread.

Ultimately, research shows that a combination of fact-checking approaches in tandem with audits of platforms and partnerships with researchers and citizen activists are important in ensuring safe and trustworthy community spaces on social media.

Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!


Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Tell us what did you think about this article?

News

Joe Biden’s record on science and tech: Investments and regulation for vaccines, broadband, microchips and AI

The Biden administration’s focus on science and technology has led to substantial investments in semiconductor manufacturing and clean energy, aiming to enhance U.S. competitiveness and innovation while addressing public health challenges.

Published

on

file 20250113 15 ndqngm
Massive support for U.S. computer chip manufacturing will be part of Joe Biden’s tech legacy. AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

Mark Zachary Taylor, Georgia Institute of Technology

In evaluating the outgoing Biden administration, much news has focused on inflation, immigration or Hunter’s laptop. But as an expert on national competitiveness in science and technology, I have a somewhat different emphasis. My research shows that U.S. prosperity and security depend heavily on the country’s ability to produce cutting-edge science and tech.

So, how did the Biden administration perform along these lines?

Advancing pandemic science and tech

President Joe Biden’s immediate challenge after inauguration was to end the COVID-19 pandemic and then shift the economy back to normal operations.

First, he threw the weight of his administration behind vaccine production and distribution. Thanks to President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, inoculations had begun mid-December 2020. But there had been no national rollout, and no plans existed for one. When Biden took office, only about 5% of Americans had been vaccinated.

Seated and masked Biden gets a shot in his arm from a masked medical worker
Biden set an example by getting his own COVID-19 vaccinations. Joshua Roberts via Getty Images

The Biden administration collaborated with private retail chains to build up cold storage and distribution capacity. To ensure adequate vaccine supply, Biden worked to support the major pharmaceutical manufacturers. And throughout, Biden conducted a public relations campaign to inform, educate and motivate Americans to get vaccinated.

Within the first 10 weeks of Biden’s presidency, one-third of the U.S. population had received at least one dose, half by the end of May, and over 70% by year’s end. And as Americans got vaccinated, travel bans were lifted, schools came back into session, and business gradually returned to normal.

A later study found that Biden’s vaccination program prevented more than 3.2 million American deaths and 18.5 million hospitalizations, and saved US$1.15 trillion in medical costs and lost economic output.

In the wake of the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden signed two bills with direct and widespread impacts on science and technology. Previous administrations had promised infrastructure investments, but Biden delivered. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed with bipartisan support during late 2021, provided $1.2 trillion for infrastructure of all types.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

Rather than just rebuilding, the act prioritized technological upgrades: clean water, clean energy, rural high-speed internet, modernization of public transit and airports, and electric grid reliability.

installer on a residential roof carrying a solar panel
Clean energy technologies, including solar panels, got a boost from the Inflation Reduction Act. David Becker/The Washington Post via Getty Images

In August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, totaling $739 billion in tax credits and direct expenditures. This was the largest climate change legislation in U.S. history. It implemented a vast panoply of subsidies and incentives to develop and distribute the science and tech necessary for clean and renewable energy, environmental conservation and to address climate change.

Science and tech marquees and sleepers

Some Biden administration science and technology achievements have been fairly obvious. For example, Biden successfully pushed for increased federal research and development funding. Federal R&D dollars jumped by 25% from 2021 to 2024. Recipients included the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, NASA and the Department of Defense. In addition, Biden oversaw investment in emerging technologies, such as AI, and their responsible governance.

Biden also retained or raised Trump’s tariffs and continued his predecessor’s skepticism of new free-trade agreements, thereby cementing a protectionist turn in American trade policy. Biden’s addition was to add protectionist industrial policy – subsidies for domestic manufacturing and innovation, as well as “buy-American” mandates.

Other accomplishments have been more under the radar. For example, within the National Science Foundation, Biden created a Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships to improve U.S. economic competitiveness. Its tasks are to speed the development of breakthrough technologies, to accelerate their transition into the marketplace, and to reskill and upskill American workers into high-quality jobs with better wages.

Biden talks into mic in a factory with big American flag in background
Biden encouraged companies to manufacture new inventions in the United States. AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Biden implemented policies aimed at strengthening and improving federal scientific integrity to help citizens feel they can trust federally funded science and its use. He also advanced new measures to improve research security, aimed at keeping federally funded research from being improperly obtained by foreign entities.

The CHIPS & Science Act

The jewel in the crown of Biden’s science and tech agenda was the bipartisan Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, meant to strengthen U.S. manufacturing capabilities in advanced semiconductor chips. It has awarded about $40 billion to American chip producers, prompting an additional $450 billion in private investment in over 90 new manufacturing projects across 28 states.

Directed at everything from advanced packaging to memory chips, the CHIPS Act’s subsidies have reduced the private costs of domestic semiconductor production. CHIPS also pushes for these new manufacturing jobs to go to American workers at good pay. Whereas the U.S. manufactured few of the most advanced chips just two years ago, the industry expects the United States to possess 28% of global capacity by 2032.

Less well known are the “science” parts of the CHIPS Act. For example, it invested half a billion dollars in dozens of regional innovation and technology hubs across the country. These hubs focus on a broad range of strategic sectors, including critical materials, sustainable polymers, precision medicine and medical devices. Over 30 tech hubs have already been designated, such as the Elevate Quantum Tech Hub in Denver and the Wisconsin Biohealth Tech Hub.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!
Biden stands at table that holds examples of technology, flanked by two other men
Biden tours a semiconductor manufacturer in North Carolina in 2023. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

The CHIPS Act also aims to broaden participation in science. It does so by improving the tracking and funding of research and STEM education to hitherto underrepresented Americans – by district, occupation, ethnicity, gender, institution and socioeconomic background. It also attempts to extend the impact of federally funded research to tackle global challenges, such as supply chain disruptions, resource waste and energy security.

Missed opportunities and future possibilities

Despite these achievements, the Biden administration has faced criticism on the science and tech front. Some critics allege that U.S. research security is still not properly defending American science and technology against theft or counterfeit by rivals.

Others insist that federal R&D spending remains too low. In particular, they call for more investment in U.S. research infrastructure – such as up-to-date laboratories and data systems – and emerging technologies.

The administration’s government-centered approach to AI has also drawn criticism as stifling and wrong-headed.

Personally, I am agnostic on these issues, but they are legitimate concerns. In my opinion, science and technology investments take considerable time to pan out, so early judgments of Biden’s success or failure are probably premature.

Nevertheless, the next administration has its work cut out for it. International cooperation will likely be key. The most vexing global problems require science and technology advances that are beyond the ability of any single country. The challenge is for the United States to collaborate in ways that complement American competitiveness.

National priorities will likely include the development of productive and ethical AI that helps the U.S. to be more competitive, as well as a new quantum computing industry. Neuroscience and “healthspan” research also hold considerable promise for improving U.S. competitiveness while transforming Americans’ life satisfaction.

Keeping the whole American science and technology enterprise rigorous will require two elements from the federal government: more resources and a competitive environment. American greatness will depend on President-elect Trump’s ability to deliver them.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

Mark Zachary Taylor, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban: 5 essential reads on the case and its consequences

The U.S. Supreme Court mandated TikTok’s sale, citing national security risks tied to its Chinese ownership. Controversies include user data exploitation and implications for free speech and cybersecurity.

Published

on

TikTok ban
TikTok takes on the U.S. government. Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Eric Smalley, The Conversation and Matt Williams, The Conversation

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17, 2025, upheld a law requiring TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, to sell the video app by Jan. 19, 2025, or face a nationwide ban on the app. In a unanimous decision, the court rejected TikTok’s claim that the law violates its First Amendment rights.

The court’s ruling is the latest development in a lengthy saga over the fate of an app that is widely popular, especially among young Americans, but that many politicians in Washington say is a security risk.

The ruling is unlikely to be the end of the story. President Joe Biden said that he will not enforce the law in the waning hours of his administration. President-elect Donald Trump said he will reverse the ban and is reportedly considering an executive order to do so.

But why is TikTok controversial? Are the claims of it being a national security risk valid? And what will the case mean for free speech? The Conversation’s contributors have been on hand to answer these questions.

1. An agent of the Chinese state?

Politicians who wanted to ban TikTok, or at least sever its links to China, fear that the app provides a way for the Chinese Communist Party to influence Americans or use their data for malicious purposes. But how much influence does the Chinese government have on TikTok? That question is addressed by Shaomin Li, a scholar of China’s political economy and business at Old Dominion University.

Li explains that the relationship between TikTok, ByteDance and the Chinese Communist Party is nuanced – it isn’t simply a matter of officials in Beijing telling ByteDance to jump and the parent company dictating how high its subsidiary will leap. Rather, as with all companies in China, employees are under certain obligations when it comes to advancing national interests. In China, private enterprises, such as ByteDance, operate as joint ventures with the state.

“Regardless of whether ByteDance has formal ties with the party, there will be the tacit understanding that the management is working for two bosses: the investors of the company and, more importantly, their political overseers that represent the party,” Li writes. “But most importantly, when the interests of the two bosses conflict, the party trumps.”

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

2. Exploiting user data

The risks TikTok poses to U.S. users are similar to the risks posed by many popular apps, principally that the app collects data about you. That data, which includes contact information and website tracking, plus all data you post and messages you send through the app, is available to use or misuse by ByteDance and any other entity that has or gains access to it.

Iowa State University cybersecurity researcher Doug Jacobson writes that U.S. officials and lawmakers are concerned that the Chinese government could exploit TikTok user data to spy on U.S. citizens. Government hackers could use the TikTok data to trick users into revealing more personal information.

But if the goal is to counter Chinese hackers, banning TikTok is likely to prove too little, too late. “By some estimates, the Chinese government has already collected personal information on at least 80% of the U.S. population via various means,” Jacobson writes. “The Chinese government – along with anyone else with money – also has access to the large market for personal data.”

3. The security risks of a ban

Banning TikTok could also make U.S. users more vulnerable to hackers of all stripes. Rochester Institute of Technology computer security expert Robert Olson writes that many of the 170 million U.S. TikTok users could try to get around a ban on the app, with negative consequences for their digital safety.

If TikTok ends up banned from Apple’s and Google’s app stores, users could try to access the app elsewhere via sideloading. This practice of getting around the Apple and Google app stores leaves users vulnerable to malware posing as the TikTok app. TikTok users might also be motivated to circumvent Apple and Google security controls in order to keep the app installed, a move that would make users’ phones more vulnerable.

“I find it unlikely that a TikTok ban (is) technologically enforceable,” Olson writes. “This … legislation – aimed at improving cybersecurity – could motivate users to engage in riskier digital behavior.”

4. First Amendment concerns

In its legal challenge to the U.S. government, ByteDance claimed the government is violating its First Amendment rights. Technology law scholars Anupam Chander of Georgetown University and Gautam Hans of Cornell University write that ByteDance had grounds for its claim, and that the implications go beyond this case.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

TikTok is a publisher – an online publisher of users’ videos. Forcing ByteDance to divest TikTok is a form of prior restraint – the government preventing speech before it occurs, Chander and Hans write.

“By forcing the sale of TikTok to an entity without ties to the Chinese Communist Party, Congress’ intent with the law is to change the nature of the platform,” they write. “That kind of government action implicates the core concerns that the First Amendment was designed to protect against: government interference in the speech of private parties.”

5. What about the others?

Security and legal issues aside, the forced sale to a U.S.-based company or ban of TikTok in the United States is a questionable approach to solving the problems the law aims to address: potential Chinese government influence in the U.S., harm to teens and data privacy violations, writes Arizona State media scholar Sarah Florini.

The Chinese government – and other U.S. adversaries – have long used social media apps owned by U.S. companies to attempt to influence American public opinion. TikTok is hardly alone in posing harm to teens, as the Facebook whistleblower case amply demonstrated. And vast amounts of Americans’ personal data are already available to any buyer on the open and black markets.

“Concerns about TikTok are not unfounded, but they are also not unique. Each threat posed by TikTok has also been posed by U.S.-based social media for over a decade,” Florini writes.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Sept. 16, 2024.

Eric Smalley, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation and Matt Williams, Senior International Editor, The Conversation

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Want more stories 👋
“Your morning jolt of Inspiring & Interesting Stories!”

Sign up to receive awesome articles directly to your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

STM Coffee Newsletter 1

Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

News

LA fires: Why fast-moving wildfires and those started by human activities are more destructive and harder to contain

Published

on

file 20250113 21 iddn1y
A home burns in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on Jan. 7, 2025. AP Photo/Ethan Swope

Virginia Iglesias, University of Colorado Boulder

Investigators are trying to determine what caused several wind-driven wildfires that have destroyed thousands of homes across the Los Angeles area in January 2025. Given the fires’ locations, and lack of lightning at the time, it’s likely that utility infrastructure, other equipment or human activities were involved.

California’s wildfires have become increasingly destructive in recent years. Research my colleagues and I have conducted shows U.S. wildfires are up to four times larger and three times more frequent than they were in the 1980s and ’90s. Fast-moving fires have been particularly destructive, accounting for 78% of structures destroyed and 61% of suppression costs between 2001 and 2020.

Lightning strikes are a common cause of U.S. wildfires, but the majority of wildfires that threaten communities are started by human activities.

A broken power line started the deadly 2023 Maui fire that destroyed the town of Lahaina, Hawaii. Metal from cars or mowers dragging on the ground can spark fires. California’s largest fire in 2024 started when a man pushed a burning car into a ravine near Chico. The fire destroyed more than 700 homes and buildings.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CUQDU/3

What makes these wildfires so destructive and difficult to contain?

The answer lies in a mix of wind speed, changing climate, the legacy of past land-management practices, and current human activities that are reshaping fire behavior and increasing the risk they pose.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

Fire’s perfect storm

Wildfires rely on three key elements to spread: conducive weather, dry fuel and an ignition source. Each of these factors has undergone pronounced changes in recent decades. While climate change sets the stage for larger and more intense fires, humans are actively fanning the flames.

Climate and weather

Extreme temperatures play a dangerous role in wildfires. Heat dries out vegetation, making it more flammable. Under these conditions, wildfires ignite more easily, spread faster and burn with greater intensity. In the western U.S., aridity attributed to climate change has doubled the amount of forestland that has burned since 1984.

Compounding the problem is the rapid rise in nighttime temperatures, now increasing faster than daytime temperatures. Nights, which used to offer a reprieve with cooler conditions and higher humidity, do so less often, allowing fires to continue raging without pause.

Finally, winds contribute to the rapid expansion, increased intensity and erratic behavior of wildfires. Wind gusts push heat and embers ahead of the fire front and can cause it to rapidly expand. They can also create spot fires in new locations. Additionally, winds enhance combustion by supplying more oxygen, which can make the fire more unpredictable and challenging to control. Usually driven by high winds, fast-moving fires have become more frequent in recent decades.

Two older men on ATVs watch the sky as a cloud of smoke rises behind them.
Ranchers watch as firefighting planes battle the Park Fire, which was fueled by extremely hot, dry conditions in Butte County, Calif., in July 2024. AP Photo/Noah Berger

Fuel

Fire is a natural process that has shaped ecosystems for over 420 million years. Indigenous people historically used controlled burns to manage landscapes and reduce fuel buildup. However, a century of fire suppression has allowed vast areas to accumulate dense fuels, priming them for larger and more intense wildfires.

Invasive species, such as certain grasses, have exacerbated the issue by creating continuous fuel beds that accelerate fire spread, often doubling or tripling fire activity.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

Additionally, human development in fire-prone regions, especially in the wildland-urban interface, where neighborhoods intermingle with forest and grassland vegetation, has introduced new, highly flammable fuels. Buildings, vehicles and infrastructure often ignite easily and burn hotter and faster than natural vegetation. These changes have significantly altered fuel patterns, creating conditions conducive to more severe and harder-to-control wildfires.

Ignition

Lightning can ignite wildfires, but humans are responsible for an increasing share. From unattended campfires to arson or sparks from power lines, over 84% of the wildfires affecting communities are human-ignited.

Human activities have not only tripled the length of the fire season, but they also have resulted in fires that pose a higher risk to people.

A burned-out washer and dryer are all that remain recognizable in the debris of what was once a home. Burned tree trunks are in the background.
More than 600 homes and buildings burned in the Park Fire, one of California’s largest fires on record. Officials say the fire was started by a man pushing a burning car into a ravine near Chico. AP Photo/Eugene Garcia

Lightning-started fires often coincide with storms that carry rain or higher humidity, which slows fires’ spread. Human-started fires, however, typically ignite under more extreme conditions – hotter temperatures, lower humidity and stronger winds. This leads to greater flame heights, faster spread in the critical early days before crews can respond, and more severe ecosystem effects, such as killing more trees and degrading the soil.

Human-ignited fires often occur in or near populated areas, where flammable structures and vegetation create even more hazardous conditions. Homes and the materials around them, such as wooden fences and porches, can burn quickly and send burning embers airborne, further spreading the flames.

As urban development expands into wildlands, the probability of human-started fires and the property potentially exposed to fire increase, creating a feedback loop of escalating wildfire risk.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WKt8h/1

Whiplash weather

A phenomenon known as whiplash weather, marked by unusually wet winters and springs followed by extreme summer heat, was especially pronounced in Southern California in recent years.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

A wet spring in 2024 fostered vegetation growth, which then dried out under scorching summer temperatures, turning into highly combustible fuel. This cycle fueled some of the biggest fires of the 2024 season, several of which were started by humans.

That dryness continued in Southern California through the fall and into early winter, with very little rainfall. Soil moisture in the Los Angeles region was about 2% of historical levels for that time of year when the fires began on Jan. 7, 2025.

As the factors that can drive wildfires converge, the potential for increasingly severe wildfires looms ever larger. Severe fires also release large amounts of carbon from trees, vegetation and soils into the atmosphere, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbating climate change, contributing to more extreme fire seasons.

This is an update to an article originally published Oct. 8, 2024.

Virginia Iglesias, Interim Earth Lab Director, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement
Big Dill Pickleball Co. Serving Up Fun!

Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending