Associate professor, David Eaves, writes about the essential role of the commodification of services in digital sovereignty. The questions to ask on the way to digital sovereignty are not as much about owning the stack but about the ability to move workloads. In other words, open standards for protocols, file formats, and more are the prerequisites. The same applies to the software supply chain. However, as we recently discussed here, PHK recently pointed out that Free and Open Source reference implementations would be of great benefit. Associate professor Eaves writes:
There is growing and valid concern among policymakers about tech sovereignty and cloud infrastructure. A handful of American hyperscalers — AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud — control the digital substrate on which modern economies run. This concentration is compounded by a US government increasingly willing to wield its digital industries as leverage. As French President Emmanuel Macron quipped: "There is no such thing as happy vassalage."
While some countries appear ready to concede market dominance in exchange for improved trade relations, others are exploring massive investments in public sector alternatives to the hyperscalers, advocating that billions, and possibly many many billions, be spent to on sovereign stack plans, and/or positioning local telecoms as alternatives to the hyperscalers.
Ironically, both strategies may increase dependency, limit government agency and increase economic and geopolitical risks — the very problems sovereignty seeks to solve. As Mike Bracken and I wrote earlier this year: "Domination by a local champion, free to extract rents, may be a path to greater autonomy, but it is unlikely to lead to increased competitiveness or greater global influence."
Any realistic path to increased agency will be expensive and take years. To be sustainable, it must focus on commoditizing existing solutions through interoperability and de facto standards that will broaden the market (and enable effective) national champions. This should be our north star and direction of travel. The metric for success should focus on making it as simple as possible to move data and applications across suppliers. Critically, this cannot be achieved by regulation alone, it will also require deft procurement and a willingness to accept de facto as opposed to ideal standards. The good news is governments have done this before. However, to succeed, it will require building the capacity to become market shapers and not market takers — thinking like electricity grids and railway gauges, not digital empires .
The essential role of commodities has been widely known and acknowledged for decades. We are in this situation because key companies and/or monopolies saw that long ago and were allowed to fight so hard all this time against ICT remaining as commodities. Sadly, the discussion about commodification probably peaked in the years just after the infamous Halloween Documents, particularly the first one. Eric S Raymond, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar and early FOSS developer, published these leaked documents which covered potential strategies relating to M$ fight against free and open source software and, in particular, against Linux back in 1998. In retrospect these documents have turned out to be blueprints, used against FOSS and open standards by other companies as well.
Previously:
(2026) Sorry, Eh
(2026) Poul-Henning Kamp's Feedback to the EU on Digital Sovereignty
(2026) A Post-American, Enshittification-Resistant Internet
(2025) This German State Decides to Save €15 Million Each Year By Kicking Out Microsoft for Open Source
(2025) Why People Keep Flocking to Linux in 2025 (and It's Not Just to Escape Windows)
(2025) Microsoft Can't Guarantee Data Sovereignty – OVHcloud Says 'We Told You So'
(2014) US Offering Cash For Pro-TAFTA/TTIP Propaganda
« Researchers Use D&D to Test AI's Long-Term Decision-Making Abilities | How Often Do AI Chatbots Lead Users Down a Harmful Path? »
Related Stories
Techdirt reports that the US embassy in Berlin has been offering to pay organisations to produce pro-TTIP propaganda.
If you haven't been following the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) negotiations, that's no surprise given they are taking place in secret. The 'free trade' agreement negotiations are less to do with free trade and more about standardising issues like providing corporate sovereignty over national sovereignty, and ratcheting up copyright and patent laws in secret.
The key negotiators have long been complaining about "misinformation" being spread about this and other agreements [...] But instead of transparency, it appears that the US State Department has settled on another option: paying for propaganda.
No joke, the US Embassy in Berlin has apparently been tweeting out offers to give out between $5,000 and $20,000 to organizations willing to produce pro-TAFTA/TTIP propaganda.
French provider seizes on Redmond's admission that US law could override local protections:
European cloud provider OVHcloud has long warned about the risks of relying on foreign tech giants for critical infrastructure – especially when it comes to data sovereignty.
Those warnings seemed to gain fresh credibility in June, when Microsoft admitted it could not guarantee that customer data would remain protected from US government access requests.
"They finally told the truth!" says OVHcloud Chief Legal Officer Solange Viegas Dos Reis. "It's not a surprise," she shrugs, "we already knew that." However, "this reply from Microsoft brought kind of a shock for customers, because they suddenly discover that what they have been taught for a while. 'Oh guys, don't worry, it will not apply to you. Don't worry.' It's false! Because, indeed, the data can be communicated."
Anton Carniaux, director of public and legal affairs at Microsoft France, made the admission during a hearing [source in French] in the country. In answer to whether he could guarantee that data on French citizens could not be transmitted to the US government without the explicit agreement of the French authorities, Carniaux replied: "No, I can't guarantee it," but added that the scenario had "never happened before."
[...] The sovereignty problem, however, is difficult to solve. Almost every vendor and commentator appears to have a different idea of what it means. "One of the issues we have is that, as there is no legal definition of sovereignty, everyone has their own idea of what sovereignty is," Viegas Dos Reis says. "It's becoming quite a marketing concept for some."
She states that there are three key concepts: data sovereignty, technical sovereignty, and operational sovereignty.
Data sovereignty is the simplest to define. It involves compliance with the laws where the data resides, rather than the laws of other countries. It also covers the freedom of choice regarding where that data is stored. Additionally, it involves ethics, such as not training LLMs on the data. Finally, it involves keeping the data secure.
"Technical sovereignty," says Viegas Dos Reis, "is about being able, through ensuring interoperability, you can move your data from one provider to another." Data might be being stored with one cloud provider, but processed by another.
"So interoperability, reversibility, it's about the control of the infrastructure – datacenters, of course – but telecommunications network as well. It's about the control of the choice of the provider you have with the supply chain you have.
"So you control your supply chain, and that means that you control the risk. When you have a risk in one part of the supply chain, you must be able to change it to adapt."
And finally, there is operational sovereignty. Who will have access to the data? It is not difficult to imagine support personnel looking at screens of data in another country to diagnose an issue and inadvertently blow a hole in the most carefully made sovereignty plans.
[...] Concerns about the dominance of cloud hyperscalers are not new. However, worries about competition in the era of AI and fears surrounding the unpredictability of the US regime have led many customers – not just in Europe – to take a long, hard look at their dependencies.
"The sovereignty pitch starts rising in a lot of countries," says Viegas Dos Reis, "because there is this fear of, 'OK, if I'm not digitally sovereign, I expose myself as a country, as a company, and as an individual as well. I expose myself to pressure from a third party.
[...] That said, Viegas Dos Reis acknowledges that a migration from the hyperscalers would be "a very long and complex project." After all, it can be costly to leave a hyperscaler, and the services of one provider are not necessarily matched by another.
That said, Viegas Dos Reis notes that a slow migration does appear to be underway, where companies are considering which workloads need to be where. Some can stay in the public cloud. Some might be on-premises. Others might opt for a European cloud provider.
"Each company should have a clear strategy on the management of its data and of its dependencies, and each company should map the data, map the needs," says Viegas Dos Reis.
"And depending on this mapping, they will say, 'OK, with this kind of data, no problem. I can put it in a cloud that is not immune to a territorial regulation, but another kind of data. Oh, my God, if this data falls into the hands of a foreign government or a competitor, I will have big, big problems.'"
By my count, Linux has over 11% of the desktop market. Here's how I got that number - and why people are making the leap:
My colleague Jack Wallen and I have been telling you for a while now that you should switch from Windows to the Linux desktop. Sounds like some of you have been listening.
The proof of the pudding comes from various sources. First, with Windows 10 nearing the end of its supported life, we told you to consider switching from Windows to Linux Mint or another Windows-like Linux distribution. What do we find now?
Zorin OS, an excellent Linux desktop, reports that its latest release, "Zorin OS 18 has amassed 1 million downloads in just over a month since its release." What makes it especially interesting is that over "78% of these downloads came from Windows" users.
[...] Many have already been making the leap. By May 2025, StatCounter data showed the Linux desktop had grown from a minute 1.5% global desktop share in 2020 to above 4% in 2024, and was at a new American high of above 5% by 2025.
In StatCounter's latest US numbers, which cover through October, Linux shows up as only 3.49%. But if you look closer, "unknown" accounts for 4.21%. Allow me to make an educated guess here: I suspect those unknown desktops are actually running Linux. What else could it be? FreeBSD? Unix? OS/2? Unlikely.
In addition, ChromeOS comes in at 3.67%, which strikes me as much too low. Leaving that aside, ChromeOS is a Linux variant. It just uses the Chrome web browser for its interface rather than KDE Plasma, Cinnamon, or another Linux desktop environment. Put all these together, and you get a Linux desktop market share of 11.37%. Now we're talking.
If you want to look at the broader world of end-user operating systems, including phones and tablets, Linux comes out even better. In the US, where we love our Apple iPhones, Android -- yes, another Linux distro -- boasts 41.71% of the market share, according to StatCounter's latest numbers. Globally, however, Android rules with 72.55% of the market.
https://itsfoss.com/news/german-state-ditch-microsoft/
Schleswig-Holstein's migration to LibreOffice reaches 80% completion, with a one-time €9 million investment on cards for 2026.
European governments are pushing back against Big Tech's grip on public infrastructure. Denmark announced earlier this year that its Ministry of Digital Affairs was switching from Microsoft to LibreOffice. In more recent news, Switzerland's data protection authorities declared international cloud services unsuitable for handling personal data.
One German state has been leading this charge for quite some time. Schleswig-Holstein started its open source journey early, becoming something of a vanguard in Europe's move away from proprietary software.
Now, Dirk Schrödter, the Minister for Digital Transformation of the state, has shared some remarkable numbers (in Deutsch) that prove the financial case for implementing open source for government use cases.
According to Schrödter's ministry, Schleswig-Holstein will save over €15 million in license costs in 2026. This is money the state previously paid Microsoft for Office 365 and related services.
The savings come from nearly completing the migration to LibreOffice. Outside the tax administration, almost 80% of workplaces in the state government are said to have made the switch.
The remaining 20% of workplaces still depend on Microsoft programs. Technical dependencies in certain specialized applications keep these systems tied to Word or Excel for now. But converting these remaining computers is the end goal.
There is also a one-time €9 million investment set in motion for 2026, which would be used to complete the migration and further develop the open source solutions for the ministry.
These numbers deserve attention from governments worldwide. Schleswig-Holstein proves that breaking free from proprietary software isn't just ideologically appealing but financially smart.
The €15 million annual savings will compound year after year. That is public money staying in the economy instead of flowing to a user data-hungry tech giant based overseas.
More importantly, this is about data sovereignty. Why should governments hand sensitive government data to companies subject to foreign surveillance laws? Open source alternatives keep data in-house, under local control, without forced cloud uploads.
The videos from the 39C3 are all in place, and Cory Doctorow's fast-paced talk, A post-American, enshittification-resistant Internet, is among them.
That talk is worth special mention. Don't be put off by the gratuitous cursing or the CCC's misspelling of the name Internet. And because it's often easier, and always faster, to just read text than slog through a video, Cory has also posted a transcript of his presentation:
We won that skirmish, but friends, I have bad news, news that will not surprise you. Despite wins like that one, we have been losing the war on the general purpose computer for the past 25 years.
Which is why I've come to Hamburg today. Because, after decades of throwing myself against a locked door, the door that leads to a new, good internet, one that delivers both the technological self-determination of the old, good [I]nternet, and the ease of use of Web 2.0 that let our normie friends join the party, that door has been unlocked.
Today, it is open a crack. It's open a crack!
His presentation is good all the way through, even to the final Q & A.
Basically, the gist is that 1) the US dollar is no longer a (semi-)neutral platform and 2) the threat of withdrawing financial support has already been played and cannot be used for leverage any more. Countries are now forced to actively work around both points, which is inconvenient and expensive, but the result is that they have been liberated from similar future threats and thus in that way have regained a bit of independence as far as software laws go. That liberation is because economic retaliation has already occurred, nations can more or less safely undo the anti-circumvention laws forced down their throats by "free" trade "agreements". The first country to do so will be able to take a very big bite out of the trillions of dollars (or euros) which Apple and the others currently collect.
What other 39C3 presentations have soylentils found interesting in a positive way?
Previously:
(2025) The 39th Chaos Communication Congress (39C3) Taking Place Now in Hamburg Through 30 Dec 2025
(2025) 38th Chaos Communication Congress (38C3) Presentations Online
(2017) 34th Chaos Communication Congress (34C3) Presentations Online
Cory Doctorow Proposes How to Break Free From Digital Domination
So far, every country in the world has had one of two responses to the Trump tariffs. The first one is: "Give Trump everything he asks for (except Greenland) and hope he stops being mad at you." This has been an absolute failure. Give Trump an inch, he'll take a mile. He'll take fucking Greenland. Capitulation is a failure.
But so is the other tactic: retaliatory tariffs. That's what we've done in Canada (like all the best Americans, I'm Canadian). Our top move has been to levy tariffs on the stuff we import from America, making the things we buy more expensive. That's a weird way to punish America! It's like punching yourself in the face as hard as you can, and hoping the downstairs neighbor says "Ouch!"
And it's indiscriminate. Why whack some poor farmer from a state that begins and ends with a vowel with tariffs on his soybeans. That guy never did anything bad to Canada.
But there's a third possible response to tariffs, one that's just sitting there, begging to be tried: what about repealing anticircumvention law?
If you're a technologist or an investor based in a country that's repealed its anticircumvention law, you can go into business making disenshittificatory products that plug into America's defective tech exports, allowing the people who own and use those products to use them in ways that are good for them, even if those uses make the company's shareholders mad.
Simple premise, interesting ramifications - I wonder what the course corrections will look like...
The quite famous FOSS developer Poul-Henning Kamp (aka PHK) has posted his feedback to the EU regarding European Open Digital Ecosystems [Intro in Danish, article in English] and their call for evidence. In it he brings their attention to open standards in points 2 and 3:
At the most fundamental level, the EU has three options:
1. Pick and bless a set of winners, consisting of:
a) Operating system, portable to any reasonable computer architecture.
b) Text-processing, suitable for tasks up to a book.
c) Spreadsheet
d) Email client.
e) Web Browser
f) Accounting software, suitable for small organizations.and fund organizations to maintain, develop and support the software for the future as open source, turning that software into infrastructure like water, power and electricity, free for all, individuals, startups and established companies alike, to use and benefit from.
2. Continuously develop/pick, bless and meticulously enforce open standards of interoperability, and then "let the competition loose".
3. Both. By providing a free baseline and de-facto reference implementations for the open standards, "the market" will be free to innovate, improve and compete, but cannot (re)create walled gardens.
Indeed, if the protocols and file formats are not publicly documented, freely available, and royalty-free, then what benefit would there be to implement them, FOSS or not?
There is an unreproducable javascript link on the EC page which goes to a relevant PDF document. It is labeled, "Call for evidence - Ares(2026)69111". It is worth checking before sending in feedback. Although English is the main language, the other official languages of EU member states can be used. The deadline for feedback is 03 February 2026.
Previously:
(2025) Why People Keep Flocking to Linux in 2025 (and It's Not Just to Escape Windows)
(2025) Europe's Plan to Ditch US Tech Giants is Built on Open Source - and It's Gaining Steam
(2025) Euro Techies Call for Sovereign Fund to Escape US Dependency
(2025) Petition on EU Linux Operating System in Public Administrations
Pluralistic: Sorry, eh (13 Jan 2026) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow:
Like all the best Americans, I'm Canadian, and while I have lived abroad for most of this century, I still hew faithfully to our folkways, which is why I'd like to start this essay by apologizing.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry! I'm a technology writer, which means I'm supposed to be encouraging you to throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the money-losingest technology in human history, AI. No one has ever lost as much money as the AI companies.
There is no way to operate one of Nvidia's big AI-optimized GPUs without losing money. The owners of these GPUs who have lost the least money are the ones who rushed into buying GPUs without ensuring they'd have electricity to power them, and have been forced to leave their GPUs to age in warehouses. The minute they plug in those GPUs, they'll start losing money, and the more they use them, the more money they'll lose.
I'm sorry. As a technology writer, I'm supposed to be telling you that this bet will some day pay off, because one day we will have shoveled so many words into the word-guessing program that it wakes up and learns how to actually do the jobs it is failing spectacularly at today. This is a proposition akin to the idea that if we keep breeding horses to run faster and faster, one of them will give birth to a locomotive. Humans possess intelligence, and machines do not. The difference between a human and a word-guessing program isn't how many words the human knows.
I'm sorry. I know that when we talk about "digital sovereignty," we're obliged to talk about how we can build more data-centres that we can fill up with money-losing chips from American silicon monopolists in the hopes of destroying as many jobs as possible while blowing through our clean energy goals and enshittifying as much of our potable water as possible.
I don't have any advice for how to do that. I'm sorry!
As Canada contemplates our response to the collapse of the American empire and its alliances with the world, the cornerstone of our current strategy is sacrificing our dollars, water and energy in order to become more dependent on America, in a weird and improbable bet that we will figure out how to make millions of Canadians unemployed. I'm sorry, that just doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
If I can beg your indulgence, I'd like to propose an alternative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 01, @07:37AM (1 child)
"Domination by a local champion, >>> free to extract rents "
State run telecom monopolies
Been there, done that
Do Not Want
(Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Sunday February 01, @09:18AM
You are right to object to replacing one set of monopolies with another. That is the point of the article. Commodified services via standard protocols and formats make it impossible to form such monopolies on the technical level. That adds an extra layer of defense against monopolies so that such defense is not dependent on just the easily corruptible political level and the all too slow legal level. Again, commodified services avoid monopolies and are the focus of the post linked to in the summary.
Twenty years ago, there was a giant push to embrace open standards, up to and including creating them when needed. However, that got in the way of those working for vendor lock-in who built out their monopolies on closed, ever changing specs. Those closed, ever changing specs (and avoidance of open standards) allowed the hostile interests to continue gather enough money to effectively
bribelobby against both the new and old open standards.It's not an easy fight. People, especially politicians, have been trained / indoctrinated to be frightened of ICT and kowtow to Redmond. The
briberylobbying money hasn't exactly helped the situation either, especially in the US. There, in order to compete on a level field, the proponents of a commodified stack are going to have to take a page out of the Right to Repair movement's book and hire lobbyists. They won't ever have enough money to go head to head against the worst of them, but well-focused use of lobbyists in specific jurisdictions can actually ratchet things forward. We've seen that already. However, that kind of action is harder in the EU because the EC basically represents the companies, historically, while the EP works directly with the lobbyists who are mostly already bought up.Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Sunday February 01, @09:01AM (3 children)
I disagree. The driver for digital sovereignty is to be able to control who has access to the information and for what purpose. Currently, US laws provide little or no protection for personal data, whereas the EU has strong protection laws and enforcement of the applicable rules.
Open standards and protocols are highly desirable for other reasons but do not, by themselves, provide any protection for the data.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Sunday February 01, @09:22AM
Open standards and protocols are highly desirable for other reasons but do not, by themselves, provide any protection for the data.
Data protection is a third point which ended up going unsaid above in the summary. The unsaid implications are that via open standards for protocols and data formats it becomes feasible to move the data to safer services and geographical regions. There are already data protection laws on the books in the EU, it's just that no one follows them in part because it is so difficult to switch hosting. Vendor lock-in is not the only problem here, but removing it takes away a very large barrier to data mobility and thus data protection.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday February 01, @11:49PM (1 child)
> the EU has strong protection laws
Agreed, the laws are on the books.
> and enforcement of the applicable rules.
I'm not feeling that much, in reality. Sure, there's the occasional slap on the wrist, the occasional "theater" about 'we always ask before storing (most of) your cookies', the occasional high dollar fine threat, and token changes in behavior of the big players, but I really don't see honest movement in the industry to genuinely comply with the intent of the EU privacy / data sovereignty protection laws. Mostly I see vendors offering premium services to handle "the complexities of compliance" while not really doing anything to truly implement the sprit of the laws.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday February 02, @06:07AM
That's probably because it is happening far more to companies in Europe than it is to those elsewhere, which is how it should be. The figures involved are usually smaller but the companies are also smaller and, importantly, not American. The reason that the latter are discussed here is because it affects a larger proportion of our community.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 01, @04:43PM (7 children)
There is no other way to do this. Never, ever, *ever* let a for-profit entity, especially a foreign one, own and control your infrastructure, *especially* not if you can't see the code and what it's doing.
Linux or *BSD is probably the best choice for this. Make it use as much in the way of simple, standard, open formats for data exchange as possible. Plain text, open audio and video and document formats. Have state-run IT agencies whose sole job is to use, improve, and contribute back to upstream the said technologies. Treat the infrastructure *as* infrastructure and build value on it, instead of seeking rent from it.
Yes, it'll be a lot of work, but it will be worth it in the medium and long term.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by canopic jug on Sunday February 01, @05:09PM
Never, ever, *ever* let a for-profit entity, especially a foreign one, own and control your infrastructure, *especially* not if you can't see the code and what it's doing.
It's not just looking at the code but being able to run it from your audited copy that matters as well.
With proprietary software, there's no telling how many unofficial back doors there are in addition to the official back doors [eff.org]. Anyway, the even the official back doors let everyone in [senate.gov], not just the "good guys". Furthermore, because the proprietary software peddlers generally make only a single version of their products, those systems with official back doors have proliferated, and along the way have spread those back doored systems, and thus the exploitation of said back doored systems spread. With Salt Typhoon, as just one example, the infestation has just gone on and on and even spread into Europe which was never obligated to follow either CALEA or CALEA2. That spread into Europe has happened all the while the US has made no headway whatsoever towards removing the APT now that it is comfortably dug in. The cause is 100% on proprietary vendors. Had Europe bothered to make their own routers build from OpenBSD, NetBSD, or GNU/Linux, that problem would not exist for them.
Yet it's not a technical problem, for the most part. A huge problem is the role the proprietary vendors (esp. m$) play in office politics. If you have an IT department with regular staff, you have to learn to work with them. If you outsource the same services to a vendor, they will normally spend all day kissing the ass of whoever controls the budget and try to help them out what little they can in intraoffice politics. There's also the pissing contest of who burns through the largest budget. That's easy to track as a line item, it's harder to figure out with a diffuse, in-house team.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday February 01, @11:58PM (5 children)
> Never, ever, *ever* let a for-profit entity, especially a foreign one, own and control your infrastructure
But what about all the MBAs who have all these spreadsheets showing millions saved by outsourcing? /s
I am perpetually amazed by the willingness of big business to put themselves over a barrel, impotent to negotiate arbitrary rate increases by vendors who effectively lock them in.
I have watched our company spend the last 10+ years building internal systems (including hiring developers from the vendor) in order to get out from under an unacceptable vendor lock-in situation. The vendor is a big-ish conglomerate and some of their products are helpful and a decent value at the moment, but they also purchased other types of service providers who are technically incompetent, perpetually years behind promised delivery dates of simple feature improvements, and greedy to boot. Unsurprisingly, the developers we have hired from them are also slow to deliver / visibly incompetent.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, @01:00AM (2 children)
someone mention SalesFarce here??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, @01:57AM
> someone mention SalesFarce here??
Sounds more like Peoplesoft. Some others fit the bill too.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 02, @04:11AM
We may be sucked into that one too...
There are so many, I know a man who works remote as a contractor for our Federal govt. (somehow not DOGEd or RTOed) - makes excellent money maintaining their canned software configurations for them.
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 02, @02:15PM (1 child)
But what about all the MBAs who have all these spreadsheets showing millions saved by outsourcing? /s
And this is why the Great Goddess invented the wood chipper :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 02, @03:19PM
>the Great Goddess invented the wood chipper :D
I feel like I had an HR training about not doing just that...
🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]