Apparently this comes in a package with a constitutional amendment that enshrines marriage as exclusively opposite-sex, which will make legalising same-sex marriage harder down the road.
Well, that's right thing to do IMO. It may be true that what happens in people's bedrooms is not government's business, but it's also true that the state has no obligation to subsidize particular lifestyles, especially when it's tantamount to waging a culture war on it's population.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you favor. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
First of all, it would be nice of you to at least looked at the responses to this comment, and reminded users that many of those are explicitly against HN guidelines (which is objectively true, with comments like just "What on earth?" [1], and my comment is essentially stating an opinion clearly acceptable in e.g. Singapore, and I know one of your goals on HN is to not be completely US-centric). Browbeating is clearly not what HN is for, and IMO allowing it would cause a lot more damage than allowing accounts primarily used for politics. Curious political discussion has some real content, browbeating doesn't.
Secondly, the effect of that policy is to essentially ban accountants with unpopular political opinions on one side of the spectrum (because people don't want to associate it with their normal work, for obvious reasons). One evidence for this is that you've probably banned more accounts on one side of political spectrum with that rationale. That should be easy to check, since the politics of accounts which use HN primarily for politics should be quite clear from their commenting history. I'm not accusing you of personal conscious bias against right-wingers in moderation here, I'm just pointing out that policy would result in more of them getting banned, since more of them have no choice but to try to conceal their identity (due to "consequences" at work, etc.). Remember what happened to Brendan Eich?
Thirdly, I disagree with your characterization of my comments as "ideological battle". I'm merely stating my political opinions, I have tried to never escalate into personal attacks, and I have tried to always add something concrete and interesting to the discussion, along the HN'a norm of intellectual curiosity. To me, ideological "battle" would imply the kind of dogmatic political rallying I got in response to my comment.
Finally, it seems that you are banning my account on a first strike. I don't remember having any previous negative interaction with the mods.
P.S. After posting this, I also noticed that you have "shadow banned" me, in the sense that my comment looks completely normal to myself when logged in, but I can't find a trace of it when logged out. That's an unethical practice in my books, and something that you have explicitly stated that you reserve for spammers and serial trolls [2].
Shadowbanning means banning someone without telling them. I just told you.
I did look at the replies and it's true that some of them were terrible and against the site guidelines, but your account was by far the greatest problem, given that you initiated a flamewar and perpetuated it with 20+ comments. Pointing the finger at others, when you've broken the rules so badly yourself, is not a good look. One might mention individual responsibility as a value here.
I think you make an interesting point about ideological asymmetry. Maybe there is a systemic factor in that way—or maybe it's just that certain classes of account are more likely to fulminate and otherwise break the rules ("commit more crimes", as some might say in another context)—or maybe both? I don't know, and I don't see what difference it would make to moderation. Should the fire department hose two sides of a burning house equally, regardless of which way the wind is blowing, lest it give an appearance of bias? It's our job to prevent this place from burning itself down. For that we have certain rules and we apply them as evenhandedly as we know how. That involves pointing the hose where the fire is.
If you or anyone thinks the rules aren't optimal, I'd be happy to hear suggestions for better rules—as long as everyone understands that "better" has a clear definition in HN's context, because we're optimizing for one specific thing (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
Isn't this amendment adding an obligation on which lifestyles the state can subsidize though?
If the state should be free to choose, it should be free to choose, not be limited by the constitutional text.
You'll have to explain how gay people being allowed to visit their loved ones on their death beds as a culture war against "the population" though.
Are gay people not part of "the population" ? I'd expect the population to be the set of all people in the country, not some subset that you happen to like
Singapore has benefits for married couples with the intention of boosting fertility rate, such as better access to HDB's. It's inappropriate to apply this to pairs of men.
Also, note that it has two kinds of marriages already, with different rules -- civil marriage, and Muslim marriage.
Agreed, we should also make sure to ban interracial marriage since same culture marriages are universal among all the countries in the world. I don't know of any thriving culture which frowns on same race marriage.
There are definitely cultures where, for instance, polygamy is seen as the desirable goal (for men) and monogamy is the poor man's fallback. And cultures where abstinence/celibacy etc. is revered. I would be surprised if there'd never been a culture where heterosexual marriage (implying a life-long commitment etc.) was the exception rather than the rule. The Na of Yunnan is supposedly one such example though I know very little about it.
Then in your own country if the vast majority of the population approve of homosexual marriage, why is it particularly your business to be concerned about it?
Ok, so what gives you reason to think subsidisation (or even just recognition) of non-traditional marriages is going to damage your culture at all?
I actually thought marriage itself was likely to die as an institution until I saw just how much support there was for gay marriage in my own country (it has something close to 70% support now. Maybe not "vast majority" but pretty close). FWIW the lowest divorce rates in the last 50 years were all recorded after same sex marriage was legalised.
> Ok, so what gives you reason to think subsidisation (or even just recognition) of non-traditional marriages is going to damage your culture at all?
Traditional nuclear family is a tenant of many cultures, including the one I have a feeling of belonging to. Also, the amount of propaganda and censorship which is needed to push these things is quite worrying.
> I actually thought marriage itself was likely to die as an institution
That's unlikely, at the very least because of Lindy effect [1]. In the traditional sense, it is under attack though.
> something close to 70% support now
First, these things are measured by polls, and the outcome of course depends on how do you ask the question. Do you think you'd get the same outcome if it was phrased as "subsidising" instead of "the right to marry"? Plus, how much propaganda and censorship did that take? Are people free to make fun of these things or harshly criticise them without fear of "consequences"?
"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"
Official nation-wide referendum, in 2017, with 61% responding yes. 80% participation.
No censorship that I was aware of, and I would very much have been concerned if there were. Lots of propaganda, arguably more on the "no" side, but accepted, that's not an entirely objective view.
I'm saying there are gay men in all countries, whether they are in the open or not. Their existence might be underground or behind closed doors, but they are there.
> separating the institution of marriage and the state doesn't seem like a completely unreasonable idea
What does this mean precisely?
Marriage without the associated state components (shared property rights, child custody rights, inheritance, etc, etc) seems like it would be much less effective than our current approach.
Being able to legally form a union where are assets are shared is a really useful function of marriage, and that function relies on the state to work.
Well, that kind of comment adds nothing to the discussion. It's certainly not as an unpopular position among the "experts" as you probably think it is [1]:
> "For the Greeks, the concept did not meaningfully exist at all; the social identities we today understand in the West as a gay man or a bisexual woman, for example, simply weren’t something that people recognized."
I suspect they never did care about this issue at all but they're trying to walk a tightrope trying not to piss off foreign investors (IIRC Goldman Sachs partners had something to say about this law) and the core PAP voter base, which tends to skew heavily in favor of "conservative/family values" and against this.
I like how he literally has no need to do this, and in spite of the concerns you mentioned is doing it anyway.
I lived in Singapore for 3 months, and as a gay man never felt unwelcome or unsafe. I benefit from other privileges that probably affected my experience, but Singapore is a pretty harmonious place.
Singapore is no stranger to selective enforcement and using the legal system against critics (often via things like defamation lawsuits). This particular law was never weaponized in that way, but there was never anything stopping them from doing so.
Good for you. I had gay friends who did not feel safe when I lived there - not exactly from 377A (the policy has been unenforced for years) but maybe losing their positions if it came out.
They didnt go to pink dot because they were afraid of appearing in any photos.
What's funny about LGBTQ friendly Western countries is that the risk of assault is higher than places that aren't LGBTQ friendly in Singapore or Japan.
So you can have on the surface level, diversity but offer no safeguards or protection against assault or even murder in the case of transwoman in the West.
Thailand? No open LGBTQ legislation or politics like you have in the West but it remains the most trans friendly country in the world.
Note that citizens may feel more acutely about systemic discrimination against homosexuals. A large factor is subsidized public housing, which a large fraction of the citizens live in. Being married and having children gives you priority for public housing, but only heterosexual unions being recognized as marriage excludes families of homosexual partners from receiving the same support.
I lived in Singapore for a few years, I moved there from a western country. I found that even given the laws at that stage that the homosexual community was fairly open, and accepted. The majority of my wife's friends are gay, and open about it.
Singapore is a nice and safe countries but there are definitely trade offs.
There were some legal challenges likely for the relevant statute, and doing it this way is much more in keeping with Singapore's approach to keeping politics "in politics".
It's carefully coordinated and done in a way that most conservatives can't really attack. In line with .sg's usual approach to doing things carefully and slowly in a controlled manner.
> Goldman Sachs partners had something to say about this law
Don't you think it's absurd that an investment bank has influence over a country's social policy? For all the cheerleading we do about democracy, we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries, thus diluting the value of a citizen's vote. No one is concerned that there is no wall of separation between business and politics.
Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.
Or to put another way, the risk is in the "Republic" aspects like the Senate and Electoral College overwhelming the "Democracy" aspects like proportional representation and popular vote.
No, "republic" simply means that governance is a public matter, not the private concern of a sovereign. It has more to do with the government's theory of legitimacy than how it is actually governed.
The UK is non-republican because it's governed by Her Majesty's Government, but democratic because the actual power to choose the government belongs to the common people.
The US is republican because the government is constituted by We The People. If it became non-democratic, it would likely remain republican because changing a government's theory of legitimacy is harder than changing how the government actually works.
You stop having a republic when rulers start picking their replacements. You'd lose the republicanism if say, Joe Biden appointed Hunter Biden to be the next president or if it became tradition that the next Trump always gets voted in as president.
Things like democracy and the electoral college tend to protect republicanism, but both can exist without maintaining the republic
Threats to our republic are filed under states rights, a fundamental construct of a republic.
This itself is viewed as a threat to our democracy by those who either think it should not be a republic or are ignorant of the fact it was intended to be. For reference, see debates about a non proportional senate and the power of minority population electoral power.
Many republics (including Singapore) do not have "states", so clearly "states rights" is not "a fundamental construct of a republic".
Nobody sane has ever cared about "states' rights" consistently - it's a silly concerpt. It was invented as part of the Lost Cause mythology to justify secession. (Fugitive slave laws, which are pretty antithetical to 'states rights," were very much something the antebellum South pushed for.)
you are correct that I should have stated "our republic" not all republics.
That said, the idea that "states rights" originated after the civil war is absurd on face vale. Powers and autonomy left to the states are evident in our founding documentation, and obviously present in the lead up to the civil war as well.
The idea that a centralized government leaves no powers to the state and local level is a silly concept and counterfactual. It is obvious in the interstate commerce clause and many other parts of the constitution.
That the US started out as a federation of independent states is a given. My point is that "states' rights" as a political-moral philosophy doesn't make much sense, and almost nobody has pushed for states's rights consistently or when it goes against what they otherwise want. One might argue that decisions should be made at the smallest (most local) level that makes sense, but the idea that "state" means "local decision-making" is pretty dubious. Furthermore, "states' rights" as a political rallying cry in the US came after the Civil War and was used to justify segregation.
That’s because they’re the same thing in different languages. I learned the same propaganda as you; the distinction taught to us was basically made up.
Per google search ".. etymology"
demos: the people; -cratia: power, rule; Greek.
res: entity, concern; publicus: of the people, public; Latin
"Rule of the People" and "Concern of the People" sound SIMILAR, sure!
Just because a mechanic is concerned for your car, does not mean he owns it...
I think it's lazy of you to call this dichotomy "propoganda" without offering any definitions or etymology.
English etymology doesn’t get you there and encourages exactly the kind of distinction without a difference that I’m pointing out.
One is Roman. One is Greek. They describe the same concept, but it’s a concept that has been implemented differently both in their time and in ours: self-government. The forms and institutions are distinguishable as “Roman-style” or “Athenian-style”, but the same is true in 2022 of “American-style” and “French-style” republics.
Sure it did, but with explanations in English most likely from etymonline.com which, I like the website, but is as much a point of view source as any other. A dictionary is not a source of truth, it’s an editorialized compilation of points of view staffed by people who write the words on the page. The definitions you cited also leave plenty of room for interpretation but the part you want to look at are the mechanics of their society and in particular how power was wielded and the maximum extent of a voter’s power, not a dictionary.
Singapore is free to enact draconian laws. Expat workers, and the multinational corporations who employ them, are also free to criticise or, ultimately, to leave the country in response to those draconian laws. This would be very bad for Singapore, given the contribution those workers and corporations make to its economy, so Singapore will weigh its desire for draconian laws against its desire for a strong economy and make its own decision.
So many people confuse the freedom to do something with the freedom to do something and force the rest of the world to act as if you didn't do it.
There is always influence. One can never separate it and become a truly, wholly non-influenced person, society, or country. Muslim traders in the 1400s spread their religion throughout Southeast Asia because they wanted to influence their customers, and customers converted because they wanted better deals from those who would deem them of a similar faith. That is the same process here. If a country doesn't like such influence, such as Japan with the Dutch, they can ban it.
On the flip side of the coin, one of the most vocal opponents to repeal has been the Singapore branch of the Christian American organisation Focus of the Family [1], which counts the current Singapore foreign minister (among other politicians) as one of its patrons [2].
I don't think organisations can avoid foreign influence these days, but it'll be absurd to think that only one side was affected by it.
Indeed, just because a country wants to close down does not mean they will be successful at doing so. That is also a part of influence, when influence turns into violence.
Singapore is a giant company, that is how the country is run. Fiscal policy plays a major role in the life of everyone in the country, and that is why the country has made such improvements. Foreign investments are very important to Singapore, and do carry weight on decision making.
There is a trade off in every situation, and I believe that for most Singaporeans they are more focused on getting a HDB and $300K car and living in safe, prosperous environment, thus they allow for this type of interference. Right or wrong, it does work to provide the needs to the people.
That's... a stretch. China has "reeducation" camps for dissidents and a Great Firewall; Singapore has opposition MPs and overzealous use of libel laws against critics. The two are not particularly alike.
I have heard and seen some stupid takes on Singapore, but this takes the cake.
In the 2020 general elections, the incumbent PAP had its worst showing ever, with ~60% of the votes. There are 5+ other opposition parties that Singaporeans can and do vote for in free and fair elections.
In the PRC, there are no meaningful elections whatsoever.
>> we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries
In the case of United Fruit fomenting military coups all over LatAm, I agree. But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence. I don't see a problem with it. Some countries outright ban our social media and films - many like Iran or China citing American corporate support for gay rights (which for most conservative dictatorships is a convenient way to redirect popular anger toward an outgroup and to clamp down on free speech).
American values as relate to what you can say and who you can love are better[0] than the values of countries which dictate who can sleep with and arrest people in their beds (e.g. Malaysia). I'm glad our corporations uphold our values overseas. What is particularly offensive is when they don't, when they cave in to the whims of totalitarian governments, e.g. Disney and the NBA kowtowing to China.
Would it be bad if our corporations were going into free democracies and spreading values that align with dictatorship and the abrogation of freedoms? Yes. That's what Chinese companies are doing here.
Good for Goldman, and all other US companies that put pressure on countries they do business with to uphold universal human rights.
[0] I don't just mean morally better, although I do believe in universal rights and ethics. I mean that American-style personal liberty has outcompeted other systems in the marketplace of ideas, in economics and development, and is a more fit model for generating broad societal wealth than totalitarianism is. This explains why it's both utilitarian for Goldman to support LGBTQ rights, and for Singapore to agree to those terms from foreign companies.
> But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence
What if that shoe was on the other foot?
If people would not trade with USA because of racism?
If people would not trade with USA because of treatment if indigenous peoples? (Genocide, use plain words for that one)
The treatment of poor people? Making them live in the streets.
The treatment of poor people, leaving them to die in agony of preventable diseases?
Because of representation and exploitation of sexuality in commerce? Especially of women?
The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?
The USA is no shining light on the hill spreading goodness with soft power. It is a huge imperialistic monster spreading its tentacles and world view with a huge military. Soft power (Goldman Sachs included) is under that military umbrella.
> If people would not trade with USA because of racism?
The US no longer has institutionalized racism and is illegal. Most of the racism of today is of a different nature, primarily among particular groups of individuals.
> If people would not trade with USA because of treatment if indigenous peoples? (Genocide, use plain words for that one)
There is no longer an attempted genocide of Native Americans occurring. But if you want to talk about Native land rights, reservations, etc. then that is something worth talking about.
> The treatment of poor people? Making them live in the streets.
> The treatment of poor people, leaving them to die in agony of preventable diseases?
Don't know what you're getting at with this. Are you implying the US is the only country that has homelessness? Homelessness is a problem in just about everywhere. You're going to have to elaborate on the 'leaving them to die in agony'.
> Because of representation and exploitation of sexuality in commerce? Especially of women?
You're going to have to elaborate and give some examples. This seems like a pretty subjective topic.
> The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?
Again, elaborate. The US accepts a huge number asylum seekers and refugees. More than most countries.
>> If people would not trade with USA because of racism?
Are you trying to make a consistent argument that no one should use trade to pressure other countries to change policies they disagree with?
So you're okay with buying goods made by Israeli companies in the West Bank, right? And buying Russian oil? How about sneakers made by Uighur slaves in Chinese concentration camps? How about buying blood diamonds? Should companies not pressure countries they do business with to prevent child labor, or enforce minimal worker safety regulations?
If people didn't trade with us because our policies were abhorrent to them, then maybe our policies are abhorrent and that would put pressure on us to stop those policies, which would be good. For example, if Europe passed a law banning the import of goods made in US for-profit prisons, that would be good.
This tired argument that "US is evil, everything it does must be bad" is absurd if you have any knowledge of what goes on in the rest of the world. The US can be flawed without making it as flawed as a country that hangs homosexuals from cranes (Iran), or as flawed as one that prohibits all forms of speech against the government (China, Vietnam, Russia, and on, and on).
So if you don't think it's a problem to trade with anyone, you aren't really standing up for the moral position you claim to hold against the US.
My point, which you missed, is that the USA is one of the bad ones not one of the good ones.
I am not sure there are any good ones, a tangential point.
This in the context of:
> But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence
To Singapore. There are values from Singapore that the USA could do with, so the fact that Goldman Sachs gets to tell Singapore what laws to make - what if that shoe was on the other foot? What of "your values" need up dating - but wait. Never mind soft power. The USA has the Pacific Fleet (and another half dozen fleets) so fuck you and you values.
>> I am not sure there are any good ones, a tangential point.
I agree, but it's not tangential at all. In fact, it is the whole point. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
There are plenty of things which are not perfect, but are preferable to the other options. You might consider what position Singapore or the Philippines would be in without the US Navy sailing regularly through the South China Sea. Most likely they would be territories or dependencies of China. If Chinese Communist Party values are something you prefer to American values, then feel free to enumerate which, exactly, make it a system you would prefer to live under. (And note that this is a freedom you wouldn't have if you were posting on a Chinese message board).
Other countries can, and do, influence US policy as well as culture, in positive ways. This is also for the good. It is precisely why there is a powerful Pacific Fleet composed of people from over 100 nationalities under the US flag. When and if the Han empire begins to utilize the full capabilities of all its citizens by granting them freedom of thought, speech and movement, perhaps it will outcompete the US - other ethno-nationalist states with wise leaders have done so in the past. Even Singapore has done a fairly remarkable job of balancing speech and numerous ethnicities. Certainly better than the larger, equally strategic and yet doomed UAE.
But which values exactly do you wish to see imposed on the US which actually are practiced somewhere, and where are they practiced? That's a more interesting and fertile ground for discussion than simply "you're the bad guys"... and again, the bad guys in world history don't normally ask or care, whereas this is an intense and open topic of public debate in the US.
What you're saying is effectively: "But we're right and they're wrong, so I don't care."
Everyone thinks they're right about what they believe in, especially moral beliefs. The purpose of political systems is to provide a non-violent, transparent medium by which disagreements can be resolved.
In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive."
Global trade cannot flourish if every business attempts to install the moral values of its stakeholders in whatever country they're doing business in. There has to exist a level of professionalism where business people understand that they are not there to judge or influence other peoples and their governments.
> In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive."
People trying to demand that they be provided doctors who fit their political views would be the ones turning it into a chess piece IMO; you can't simultaneously demand that the public health system accommodate your non-public health related concerns while complaining that the public health system is now dealing with areas outside their purview.
So a private company has to do business in Singapore - and isn't allowed to complain if the Singaporean government restricts the rights of its own employees? They're just supposed to shut up and take whatever insane dictat exists in whatever jurisdiction they do business with? Why? If they're powerful enough to move the needle by threatening to withdraw from the country, then good for them! It's not that "whatever I like" is right, it's that there are universal human rights, and guess what, if enough stakeholders in these companies believe that no one should be doing business in countries or states that don't respect those rights, that's a good thing for the world.
Who should influence the affairs of a country? Take Russia now as an example. Should western countries stop Russia? Do you think western companies who pulled out of Russia are morally reprehensible because they were attempting to influence with business?
Yeah, the people who draw equivalence between US companies pulling out of Russia and Russia attempting to influence US elections are morally bankrupt and can't see that one of these things is trying to stop a war of aggression, or at least punish the murder of civilians. To even pretend not to be able to make that distinction is repugnant.
"If Gay patients are uncomfortable with Bigoted doctors, these patients deserve Compassionate doctors" is, I believe, a better summary of their comment.
Why would Goldman Sachs care about this? It's funny to me because same sex relationships were never an issue until the arrival of Judeo-Christian values via colonialism from the West.
Japan also had a long history of same sex culture, as did Korea and many other countries.
Then those cultures that imposed this discrimination turn around to poke fun at Islam for burqini or burka when as a secular outsider, its no different than Judeo/Christian/Abrahamic religious attitude and persecution of same sex relationship.
The top banks and the top consulting firms love smart and educated gay men who disproportionally fill their ranks. Why? Because they’re far less likely to have children, and they marry (if at all, particularly the nyc crowd) far later in life. So you can overwork them and make them fly all around the world an huge percentage of the year and they won’t complain like married straight people will.
Goldman Sachs is a stand-in for the kinds of international companies that might have offices in Singapore. Being an international finance hub is valuable to singapore and those companies will often employ lots of western expats in the country. Those expats are likely going to care about this and they will make their employers care somewhat about this too.
New York and London are also international financial hubs, and don't seem to have problems with people being gay. I'm not sure we can blame investment banks for this one.
Gay people are generally more educated and less likely to have kids/family. This makes them more likely to move to east Asia for a banking job. Their employers don’t want the country they work in to criminalize them.
Goldman Sachs is based on NYC and is primarily staffed with college educated, urban liberals. One of their key executives (Marty Chavez) was openly gay. I was at their headquarters (consulting) when the 2016 election election happened and the mood was utterly morose.
“Gay sex” bans being essentially bans on gay love, because sex is a crucial part of any loving relationship. Two people in love have sex. Criminalize the sex, make a romantic relationship difficult enough to be impossible. Erase gay people from existence. Standard straight homophobia playbook.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what love is. I'm sure there are plenty parents, siblings, etc. that would be quite appalled to learn from you that they can't experience love without having sex with each other.
Sex is one way to express intimacy, which can be a sign of, but is not the same thing as love. Quite trivially observable in any loving relationship between people who can't physically have sex because say a partner is disabled. Or just between couples who have been married for 50 years. Probably not as active in the bedroom compared to their 20s, but not less in love (probably the opposite).
Conflating sex and physical attraction with love is a very modern phenomenon, and I think may have something to do with the instability of relationships.
What people do in the privacy of their homes only concerns the homeowneer, Gary, Tom, Dick, Harry, 5 Jane Does, and the cutting edge of Smallpox Epidemiology research!!
https://twitter.com/kixes/status/1561334527808929793