Scattered notes on the TikTok ban

Scattered notes I took over the past year on the TikTok ban.

Congressional hearings on social media, early 2024:

Mark Zuckerberg apologizes to families over social media harms in contentious Senate hearing, Clare Duffy, Brian Fung and Aditi Sangal, CNN, January 31, 2024.

On March 13, 2024, the House of Representatives held a vote that increased the likelihood that TikTok would be banned in the US. The Senate was to consider it.

All social media has big problems:

"Mere weeks ago, the New York Times published an exposé on underage girls being pushed into “child influencing,” a world which is full of pedophiles. Instagram’s effects on teens has been widely documented by Meta’s own employees, and without really trying we have been able to document the sale of guns and drugs, hacking services, and counterfeit services in ads displayed on the platform. Discord is full of communities used for organizing by Neo Nazis and paramilitaries, criminal hackers, crypto scammers, deepfake peddlers, teens who kidnap each other, etc. Facebook is full of AI-generated bullshit that people think is real, was used by foreign adversaries to attempt to influence an election, was credibly accused of being abused to facilitate a genocide in Myanmar, and has had innumerable scandals over the years. Twitter is full of malware and has essentially gotten rid of all of its rules. YouTube is a place that has been used by ISIS terrorists, white supremacists, mass shooters, and child brainwashers. Telegram was founded by Russians, is now based in the United Arab Emirates, and is full of criminals, hackers, and Russian disinformation. We have reported endlessly that all of these platforms are monitored by governments, militaries, surveillance agencies, and commercial interests around the world using "social listening," "social media monitoring," and OSINT tools.

* * *

[Yet] I am unaware of any political pushes to ban Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter, and efforts to meaningfully regulate them to be less harmful seemingly have no political will. The only actual regulation of these platforms have been laws passed by conservatives in Florida and Texas which give them even less ability to moderate their platforms and which is the subject of a Supreme Court case.

This is just to say that TikTok and the specter of China’s control of it has become a blank canvas for which anyone who has any complaint about social media to paint their argument on, and has become a punching bag receiving scrutiny we should also be applying to every other social media giant."

— "The U.S. Wants to Ban TikTok for the Sins of Every Social Media Company," Jason Koebler, March 13, 2024

The House passed the bill, April 2024:

House Passes Bill That Could Lead To TikTok Ban In The U.S.: The measure, which has bipartisan Senate support, gives TikTok's Chinese parent company one year to divest itself of the popular video platform or get blocked. Jennifer Bendery, HuffPost, Apr 20, 2024

On surveillance:

"Larry Ellison¡s surveillance fever dream isn’t actually a fever dream: All of these are technologies that already exist in some form, many of which have not measurably driven down crime or solved the complicated societal, political, and economic problems that lead to crime in the first place or the societal power structures that protect police at every turn. These technologies have collectively cost billions of dollars, made surveillance companies very rich, and have created new privacy problems. Big Brother is here, and, surprise, having AI 'supervision' has not created a crimeless utopia."
— Larry Ellison's AI-Powered Surveillance Dystopia Is Already Here, Jason Koebler, 404 Media, Sep 17, 2024

On beauty:

"Lost in all the drama over the recent TikTok ban in the United States is the news that the TikTok algorithm suppressed views of people it viewed as unattractive and boosted people who were attractive."
— The Beautiful Ugly: Until you learn to love the flawed and broken, lasting happiness will always be out of reach. Jason McBride, Weirdo Poetry, Feb 19, 2025

Oh, here's where it was always going:

Democrats helped Trump sell the most successful video app in America to a bunch of his right wing zealot friends under the pretense of fixing privacy and improving national security

[image or embed]

— Karl Bode (@karlbode.com) September 19, 2025 at 1:04 PM

Garrett Graff (Sep 23, 2025): "Yesterday’s case-in-point is the news that Donald Trump intends the government to get a fee from the new Tiktok deal — a “deal” that follows Donald Trump blatantly ignoring the law that Congress passed and that the Supreme Court upheld ordering TikTok to be shut down back in January, a legit federal law Donald Trump has just on his own illegal say-so told companies they could ignore."

In the Network State ideology, social order will be imposed via total surveillance. Curtis Yarvin’s “patchwork” (2008) envisions citizens who must scan into cities and be tracked 24/7. Ellison, along with Yarvin cultists Andreeseen Horowitz, will soon control TikTok. fortune.com/2024/09/17/o...

[image or embed]

— Gil Durán (@gilduran.com) September 28, 2025 at 1:56 PM

A new U.S. TikTok spinoff is set to be owned and overseen by a tight-knit consortium of megabillionaires, many of whom have had direct business relationships with Trump and his administration. The deal puts Trump-aligned tech barons in control of nearly all major U.S. social media platforms.

[image or embed]

— Truthout (@truthout.org) January 28, 2026 at 7:15 PM

I like my echo chamber

resolved: people who insist that all social media sites must be places where users are constantly encountering and arguing with people over fundamental disagreement do so because their actual, real lives are echo chambers where they do not encounter any meaningful difference from day-to-day.

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) November 16, 2024 at 1:12 PM

"Echo chamber" is used to criticize people who seek out online spaces and news sources that aren't overtly hostile to us.

You can certainly find people who are opposed to conservative ideology arguing with conservatives, and they are saying all the same things, too. This is also to be expected. I’d say repetition is exactly what you can expect from people who have decided to spend their time persuading unpersuadable people. What that tells me is not that “both sides” are in an echo chamber, but rather it is specifically when debating with unreasonable people to try to persuade them with reason that reason starts to sound as nothing more than an echo of unreason, one of two equal and equivalent sides, as supremacists bring their old predictable lies in support of their positions, and those who oppose them bring the old predictable truths to counter them, until the lies and the truths get mixed up in an overlapping wash of sound.

In worst case scenarios, supremacists even learn to echo their opposition’s own words back at them in twisted ways. Grooming is a real thing, and it’s a real problem, and the people who engage in it are really protected by supremacists, but once the supremacist spirit learned about the term “grooming,” they sharpened the other side and used the word to demonize the trans community, without ceasing their defense of groomers or the institutions that shelter groomers in the least. In fact, using the term “groomers” enhances their defense of groomers, because if you accuse them of grooming (which they are) you now sound just like them, who accuse you of grooming (which you aren’t), and my god but the word “groomer” has lost all meaning in this sentence, which certainly benefits those who defend groomers.

More than that, it helps them establish supremacists, who defend groomers, as the ones who truly oppose grooming.

— Preaching To The Choir. A.R. Moxon. The Reframe. September 17, 2023.

This, I think, is a corollary of all the shame and pathologizing of kids who are different in our culture—an outsize pride taken in kids who seem to check all the boxes, meet all the social standards, are perfect little children. Children in need of protecting, keeping pure from all transgressors. So many of the battles waged in the Mirror World—the “anti-woke” laws, the “don’t say gay” bills, the blanket bans on gender-affirming medical care, the school board wars over vaccines and masks—come down to the same question: What are children for? Are they their own people, and our job, as parents, is to support and protect them as they find their paths? Or are they our appendages, our extensions, our spin-offs, our doubles, to shape and mold and ultimately benefit from? So many of these parents seem convinced that they have a right to exert absolute control over their children without any interference or input: control over their bodies (by casting masks and vaccines as a kind of child rape or poisoning); control over their minds (by casting anti-racist education as the injection of foreign ideas into the minds of their offspring); control over their gender and sexuality (by casting any attempt to discuss the range of possible gender expressions and sexual orientations as “grooming”).

This same inability to see children as autonomous beings is part of the reason why, for so long, disabled children were hidden away in cruel institutions. If a double that reflects well on them is what many parents are after, then disability arrives as an unwelcome interruption to those best-laid plans. Or, in today’s language, if your kid is your brand extension, then having a child who challenges social standards of normalcy might mean that your whole personal brand is in crisis.

— Naomi Klein. Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2023.

Complaints about Bluesky being a "left wing enclave" can be safely ignored because they fail to account for the fact that Twitter now privileges and amplifies right wing extremism and no one is obligated to put up with that as a condition of using social media

— Ian Boudreau (@iboudreau.bsky.social) October 19, 2024 at 9:47 AM

I do not want to see Nazis or spend time trying to understand the motivations of Nazis and if that means that I am part of an “echo chamber” sign me up also nobody calling it that has ever spent five minutes trying to get leftists to agree on anything

[image or embed]

— Micah (@rincewind.run) October 19, 2024 at 12:00 PM

anyway, platforms like X are absurd

This strikes me as an apt description of X:

"Much of the information on X is a mixture of irrelevance and falsehood. This morning, thanks to X giving me content I didn’t ask for, I saw an exchange that was characteristic. Nate Silver, the polling analyst, asserted that Kamala Harris was a mediocre presidential candidate. His underlying post gave reasons. This triggered an enraged response from a progressive who considered Silver’s point to be racist, I guess. This, in turn, was shared by some right-wing account that falsely identified the angry progressive as the leader of the Democratic Party. This, in turn, was shared by a billionaire, and then X put this concoction in front of me: a credulous person sharing a falsehood about an angry reaction about an opinion that I didn’t particularly need to begin with."
Steve Inskeep, The decline of social media is good: It’s been terrible at helping us think. Nov 17, 2024

Every useful conversation is some sort of bubble. Which is why you don’t see a lot of astronomy conferences with “Earth: Disc or Square?” and “Gravity as Jewish Hoax” on the agenda.

[image or embed]

— Julian Sanchez (@normative.bsky.social) May 24, 2026 at 11:44 AM

"classic Twitter was always a bad idea that was doomed to failure. We never should have tried to combine a social space with someplace to argue about politics with people who hate us. ... social media is for making friends. Comment sections are for having loud, bitter, ultimately pointless arguments about politics with people whose minds you will never change. ... if you don't think X/Twitter is a bubble, that's because you think far-right views are mainstream and sensible, the default position even, whereas anything left of center is weird and flaky by definition."
(says someone on Bluesky)

There's nothing stopping nazis from coming here and joining "the bubble." They come here and they don't like the reception they get because the people here are already inoculated against bullshit and they have the tools to deal with it. Maybe it's not the bubble. Maybe it's the nazis.

— jon rosenberg (@jonrosenberg.bsky.social) May 24, 2026 at 10:02 AM

Don't try to decide whether others should care, but talk about climate because you care

"But how do you get people to care," someone asked yesterday.

"You don’t," Katharine Hayhoe replied. "The idea that we personally decide what everyone else needs to care about is one of the central barriers to effective communication."

On that note, she shared her 2018 TEDWomen talk.

The whole talk is great. If you're most interested in not deciding what everyone else needs to care about and you only have three minutes, listen to 5:00–8:00
There, Prof. Hayhoe says essentially: First, know why climate matters to you. Then, when you talk about it, start with the values you share with the other person. If you don't know what values they might share with you, build that relationship and find out. Then, talk about why climate matters to you — those reasons are probably also salient to the other person.

Relatedly, on Caring

I wrote about The Importance of What We Care About by Harry G. Frankfurt (on Medium, paywalled).

Worried about the climate convo with your uncle at Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow? Jimmy and I have you covered.

[image or embed]

— Katharine Hayhoe (@katharinehayhoe.com) November 27, 2024 at 7:43 PM

People often claim that scientists are soft-pedalling the issue. Here is the proof that we’re not.

[image or embed]

— Katharine Hayhoe (@katharinehayhoe.com) November 27, 2024 at 7:49 PM

Senate Climate Hawks Aren't Ready To Stop Talking About It “We need to talk about it in ways that connect directly to voters’ lives right now,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a top environmentalist, said of global warming. Igor Bobic, HuffPost, Jan 3, 2026

Your daily reminder: the far right has never stopped talking about climate change. "Don't mention climate change" is a centre-right tactic designed to clear space for these people, not a good-faith piece of comms advice for the left.

[image or embed]

— Ketan Joshi (@ketanjoshi.co) February 1, 2026 at 4:34 PM

"In 2009, we identified Global Warming’s Six Americas – the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive – six distinct audiences within the American public." (Global Warming’s Six Americas, Fall 2025, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Feb 19, 2026)

I’m a climate scientist. Let me fix this headline. “Nearly a century ago, scientists showed that burning fossil fuels warms the planet. Today, we know human emissions account for over 100% of the warming. Yet dark money and disinformation still work to keep Americans addicted to fossil fuels.”

[image or embed]

— Katharine Hayhoe (@katharinehayhoe.com) May 30, 2026 at 9:04 AM

"...67% of American voters said they think global warming is affecting the cost of living in the United States, while 64% said it is affecting their own cost of living, pointing to increasing costs of home utility bills, groceries, and home insurance, among other things." time.com/article/2026...

[image or embed]

— Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (@yaleclimatecomm.bsky.social) June 12, 2026 at 1:40 PM

Two political communication strategies: De-silo and counterframe

De-Silo

The Ink spoke to Anat Shenker-Osorio about messaging. Her podcast, Words to Win By, is about political messaging. One approach is "to expand fights for justice so they encompass not just the concerns of one group, but those of the entire community." The Ink writes: "After our discussion about how such a shift had transformed the fight for abortion rights, we asked her about what other issues needed de-siloing. What immediately came to mind was the battle for transgender rights and against renewed hostility from the right toward LBGTQ+ rights overall."

Shenker-Osorio says:

"Marriage equality, by the way, is a perfect example of de-siloing. The story about gay marriage used to be, 'Well, we should feel really sad for these particular people because they don't have this right and here's why Bob and Jerry or Lisa and Cindy deserve this right.'

But success was all about shifting the argument from ensuring that those people can have their thing to marriage equality. Love is love. Love makes a family. That's a universalizing message. I'm a straight lady, married to a man and I also believe that love is love. I also feel that my relationship is made out of love and it's made out of making a family."

She continues:

"...trans folks have absolutely been siloed and that is the right wing’s doing. It's part of the tactic...anytime we exceptionalize an issue, we are left in this very vulnerable place where the only people for whom this issue has saliency are the people who view themselves as directly impacted."

Counterframe

Advice from Bryn Nelson:

"Understanding the tactics used to spread disinformation could help disrupt the storyline, [Francesca] Tripodi told me. Unmasking the motives of snake oil sellers also might reduce some of their clout. Simply fighting their lies with data, however, may be a losing proposition, especially when they insist that they too deal with facts, not feelings, while doing the precise opposite.

[Daniel] Kreiss said elevating the voices of conservatives who support the science of global warming or gender-affirming care may be another way to scramble politicized narratives with a memorable counter-frame. Emphasizing the public health crisis that can result from bans on evidence-based care, such as endangering women and increasing the risk of suicide among transgender youth, also might provide an effective rebuttal. In particular, Kreiss says, getting people to talk publicly about what they or loved ones lost after being conned by false narratives can help drive home the very real and often very personal costs of all the lies."

We Must Face Down the Expanding Anti-Reality Industry: Exposing the antiscience playbook reveals the antiregulatory motives of its deep-pocketed bankrollers, Bryn Nelson, Scientific American, May 24, 2024

Forgetting how to use machines

We want our technology to be user-friendly. Don't we? Or isn't that implying that we are content not to know how things work — in fact, that we want to be protected from knowing how things work?

"It used to be that, in addition to a dipstick, you had also a very crude interface, simpler but no different conceptually from the sophisticated interface of the new Mercedes. It was called an “idiot light.” One can be sure that the current system is not referred to in the Mercedes owner's manual as the “idiot system,” as the harsh judgment carried by that term no longer makes any sense to us. By some inscrutable cultural logic, idiocy gets recast as something desirable."
Matthew B. Crawford. Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work. New York: Penguin Press, 2009. p. 62.

Maybe we don't want to know how machines work because we don't want responsibility for what they do.

"In an earlier study, you found that people thought an autonomous vehicle should protect the greater number of people, even if that meant sacrificing its passengers. But they also said they wouldn’t buy an autonomous car programmed to act this way. What does this tell us?

Azim Shariff: People recognize it is more ethically responsible to save more lives. But people are self-interested, and it might be a hard sell to do what’s ethical. When Mercedes-Benz said that if they could only save one person, they would save the driver and not the pedestrian, public outrage made them retract that statement. This demonstrates an interesting dilemma for car companies. If you say your car would preference the passenger, there will be public outrage. If you decide to treat all life equally but imperil the life of the person who bought the car, you might actually take a hit to your bottom line, people might not buy that car. From the manufacturers we’ve talked to, they want the decision taken out of their hands and they want regulation."
“How should self-driving cars choose who not to kill?” Morgan Meaker. Feb. 15, 2019.

Perhaps we're influenced by television, which shows us an endless stream of parts, so we don't learn how to tell ourselves a broader narrative and see the whole.

"Television purports to challenge political language by conveying images, but the succession from one frame to another can hinder a sense of resolution. Everything happens fast, but nothing actually happens. Each story on televised news is ‘breaking’ until it is displaced by the next one. So we are hit by wave upon wave but never see the ocean."
Timothy Snyder. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2017. p. 60.

As we forget how things work, we also forget how to distinguish between cultural myths and decide what reality to believe in.

"Uniformity leads to forgetfulness. That’s why some observers call TV a ‘forgetting machine,’ because it puts everything on the same level. Even fiction and reality increasingly tend to blend there. And that's not just true for children."
Jean-Claude Carriere, asking an interview question to The Dalai Lama. “Between Exile and the Kingdom," February 1993. Violence and Compassion. New York: Image, 1994. p. 163.

But there are some machines the planet would really be better off without.

"A 10-year Certificate of Entitlement – a license people in the wealthy city state [of Singapore] must purchase before they are even allowed to buy a vehicle – now costs a record minimum of $76,000 (104,000 Singapore dollars), more than four times what it did in 2020, according to Land Transport Authority figures."
In this city, the right to own a car starts at $76,000. And that doesn’t include the car, Heather Chen, CNN, October 5, 2023

Clackety-clackety-bing! photo by Art Hupy, c. 1965 © Creative Commons. University of Washington Libraries, Digital Collections. Flickr.

Quotes on knowing and sharing what you love

"There is something bout the idea of a dedicated love circuitry in the brain that rubs certain people the wrong way. We accept readily enough the idea that our fear response should have its own chemical and neuronal architecture, but it seems demanding to suggest that a comparable physiological substrate exists for feelings as rich as love.
* * *
But from another angle, fingerprints are all the same: grooves in our front skin arranged in semi-concentric circles with a reliable series of components: center points, fetch points, delta points. Love is like those fingerprints: the component parts are invariably arranged in novel ways, but the components themselves are universal."
“The Brain in Love.” Steven Johnson ’90. BAM. July/August 2004. p. 42.

"When the subjects [in an fMRI test] heard or saw their iPhones ringing, their brain scans displayed not the classic signs of addiction but a firing of neurons ‘in the insular cortex of the brain, which is associated with feelings of love and compassion.’ It was as if they were in the presence of a ‘girlfriend, boyfriend, or family member.’ These people actually ‘loved their iPhones.’"
“We love our iPhones — literally.” The Week, Oct. 14, 2011. Paraphrasing Martin Lindstrom in the New York Times.

"He feels naked when speaking about things he really loves."
Gabrielle Zevin. The Storied Life of A. J. Fikry. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2014.

"It’s hard. Loving someone, but not being able to share the way you see the world. Like trying to explain color to someone who’s blind."
Markus Sakey. Brilliance. Las Vegas, N.V.: Thomas and Mercer, 2013.

Perfection, compromise, communication in love

Emerson said: "Love, and you shall be loved. All love is mathematically just, as much as the two sides of an algebraic equation."

Well, no, it isn't quite like that. The people we love are not always good for us. The novelist Amor Towles wrote: "– If we only fell in love with people who were perfect for us, he [Dicky] said, then there wouldn't be so much fuss about love in the first place." Even if two people are good for each other and love each other, their love is not equal. The novelist Thornton Wilder wrote: "Now he discovered that secret from which one never quite recovers, that even in the most perfect love one person loves less profoundly than the other."

I think rather of a comment relayed by Sari Nusseibeh: "Mathematical problems may have solutions. But in politics, there are only compromises." In love as well as in politics, one might add.

To compromise, we must communicate. Germaine Greer wrote: "The love of fellows is based upon understanding and therefore upon communication. ... If we could present an attainable ideal of love it would resemble the relationship described by Maslow as existing between self-realizing personalities." Greer also quoted O. Schwarz as saying that love is "a cognitive act, indeed the only way to grasp the innermost core of personality."

Sources

Ralph Waldo Emerson. "Compensation." In Compensation and Heroism. New York, Boston, H.M. Caldwell Co., 1900. p 32.

Amor Towles. Rules of Civility (2011). New York: Penguin Books, 2012.

Thornton Wilder. The Bridge of San Luis Rey. (1927) New York: Washington Square Press, Inc., 1960. p. 48.

A man commenting to Sari Nusseibeh after a talk he gave in Berlin. Quoted by Sari Nusseibeh. What is a Palestinian State Worth? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011. p. 219.

Germaine Greer. The Female Eunuch. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1971 (originally Great Britain: MacGibbon and Kee, 1970). p 140.

O. Schwarz, The Psychology of Sex, quoted by Germaine Greer. The Female Eunuch. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1971 (originally Great Britain: MacGibbon and kee, 1970). p 166.

Taking a stand for peace: Inside or outside the tribe?

Community is important, but there is a risk of being subsumed into a collectivity in a way that diminishes one's ability to see the humanity of others outside it. Jeremy Driscoll:

It is possible to say we in a mistaken and dangerous way. This would be the we of a nation or any group that is said at the expense of the individual subject, the individual I, such that there are no Is in the we; their only identity is their we. Sometimes people are forced into such a we, as in totalitarian governments; other times they choose it, as in a radical and mindless belonging to a group. When there is this kind of we, it is possible to look at others as only a they...

One can stand outside all tribes to defend an ideology of peace, but then, belonging to none, one receives the scorn from all. Alan Watts:

It is both dangerous and absurd for our world to be a group of communions mutually excommunicate. This is especially true of the great cultures of the East and the West, where the potentialities of communication are the richest, and the dangers of failure to communicate the worst. ... On the one hand, it is necessary to be sympathetic and to experiment personally with the way of life to the limit of one's possibilities. On the other hand, one must resist every temptation to "join the organization," to become involved with its institutional commitments. In this friendly neutral position one is apt to be disowned by both sides.


But even when disowned by people, one may have the company of one's ideals. Balzac in The Inventor’s Suffering refers to "moral aloneness," which Erich Fromm describes as the thing that monks and political prisoners lack – they are not alone because they have the company of their convictions.

To practice peace is to have the ability to see suffering others – when it really counts, when one can do something about it – as part of one human family, regardless of tribe. Michael Lerner:

Imagine that you lived in a family in which there were five children. One of those children had been given 40 percent of the resources of the family, a second had 32 percent, a third had 20 percent, a fourth was struggling with 6 percent of the resources, and one was starving to death with only 2 percent of the resources. Surely you would reject the argument of the richest child who praised the arrangements and pointed to the way that it was good for the family because a majority of the children were thriving. You’d say: “No, it is unacceptable to see one of these children starving and another struggling so hard to survive. This is a crazy and immoral arrangement, and it must immediately be changed. I will not be part of any arrangement that has these consequences.” The only reason we don’t say that about the world we live in today is because we refuse to acknowledge these others as actually part of our family.

Legal scholar Noura Erakat says "I don’t just study law," because

"I don’t think that our transformation is going to come from some logic. If this was a logical matter, you would just agree. But logic isn’t doing the work. There’s a spiritual transformation that has to happen here. How do we tap into that spiritual realm? And I see it a lot. I’m really, really hopeful. Just the amount of sacrifice and the courage that people have made, that is spiritual transformation. That’s spirit work." ("The Limits of the Law," Noura Erakat interviewed by Afeef Nessouli, Fall 2024 issue of Acacia (Issue 2))

Sources

Jeremy Driscoll, O.S.B. A Monk's Alphabet: Moments of Stillness in a Turning World. Boston: New Seeds, 2006. p. 196.

Alan Watts. The Way of Zen. Originally 1957. Vintage Spiritual Classics Edition 1999. p xi-xii.

Erich Fromm. Escape from Freedom. New York: Avon, 1941. pp. 34-35.

Michael Lerner. The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right. HarperSanFrancisco, 2006. p. 341-342.