𝖥𝗋𝗈𝗆 𝖫𝗈𝗎𝖽𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗄𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝖠𝗅𝗀𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗁𝗆𝗌: 𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝖱𝗂𝗌𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝖠𝖨-𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖤𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗇 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺

𝖳𝗁𝗈𝗌𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗆𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗒𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗒𝖾𝖺𝗋’𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗇 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺, 𝗐𝗂𝗅𝗅 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗅𝗈𝗎𝖽𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗄𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖾𝖼𝗁𝗈𝖾𝖽 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗎𝖺𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖻𝗋𝗈𝖺𝖽𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗌. 𝖳𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗒, 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒 𝗆𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖾𝖽. 𝖸𝖾𝗍, 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖻𝗒 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝗋 𝖻𝗒 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗀𝗋𝗈𝗐𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖻𝖾𝗍𝗐𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝖠𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖨𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗅𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 (𝖠𝖨) 𝖺𝗇𝖽 E𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗇𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗅𝗈𝗈𝗄𝖾𝖽 𝗂𝗇 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺.

𝖠𝖨 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨

𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗎𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖠𝖨 𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗂𝖽 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝗀𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗋𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗍, 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝗐𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗒 𝖺𝖼𝖼𝖾𝗉𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇. 𝖨𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖾𝖺𝖽, 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗆𝗈𝗇 𝗉𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾 𝖺𝗇 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖠𝖨 𝗉𝗁𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗅𝗒 𝖻𝖾𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗌𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗂𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝖺𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗏𝖺𝗋𝗂𝗈𝗎𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗉𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖠𝖨 (𝖡𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗇𝖾𝖼𝗄 𝖾𝗍 𝖺𝗅., 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟣). 𝖠𝖨 𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗇 𝗎𝗆𝖻𝗋𝖾𝗅𝗅𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆 𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗒 𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗎𝖻-𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗁𝗇𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍, 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨 𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖻𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗁. 𝖨𝗍 𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾 “𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗎𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗁𝗇𝗂𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗌𝖾𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗅𝗒 𝗇𝖾𝗐, 𝗆𝖾𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀𝖿𝗎𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍, 𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗌, 𝗈𝗋 𝖺𝗎𝖽𝗂𝗈” (𝖥𝖾𝗎𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗅 𝖾𝗍 𝖺𝗅., 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟥, 𝗉. 𝟣𝟣𝟣).

𝖯𝗈𝗅𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺

“𝖯𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗂𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗅𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝗁𝖺𝗋𝗆 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾” (𝖫𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖾𝗌𝖤𝖴, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟣). 𝖳𝗁𝗎𝗌, 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗂𝗆𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝗐𝖺𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖻𝖾𝗅𝗂𝖾𝖿𝗌, 𝖺𝗍𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝖽𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗂𝗇 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝖺 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗒 (𝖫𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗐𝖾𝗅𝗅, 𝟣𝟫𝟤𝟩). 𝖲𝗂𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝗈𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗈𝖼𝖼𝗎𝗋 𝗂𝗇 𝖺 𝗏𝖺𝖼𝗎𝗎𝗆, 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗇 𝗂𝗇𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗋𝗒 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼 𝗍𝗈𝗈𝗅𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗌𝗁𝖺𝗉𝖾 𝖻𝗈𝗍𝗁 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖼𝗁 (𝖩𝗈𝗐𝖾𝗍𝗍 & 𝖮’𝖣𝗈𝗇𝗇𝖾𝗅𝗅, 𝟤𝟢𝟣𝟤). 𝖳𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝖺𝗇 𝖻𝖾 𝗂𝗅𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗅𝗅𝗈𝗐𝗌:

𝖠𝖨-𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖤𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 (𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯)

𝖶𝗁𝗂𝗅𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗆 ‘𝖠𝗋𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖨𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗅𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖤𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺’ (𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯) 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗋𝗈𝗎𝗀𝗁 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄 𝗈𝖿 𝖮𝗄𝗈𝗅𝗈 (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦), 𝗂𝗍 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖻𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗅𝗒 𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝗒𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖾𝖽. 𝖡𝗎𝗂𝗅𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗀𝖺𝗉, 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗋’𝗌 𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌 (𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗅𝖾𝖽, “𝖡𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝖱𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖠𝖨-𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖤𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖯𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺: 𝖤𝗑𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗍 𝖢𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗌 𝗈𝗇 𝖣𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗉𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺 𝖥𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝖱𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝖯𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗒 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺”) 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 “𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗀𝗂𝖼 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗁𝗇𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗒 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖾𝗇𝗀𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗍 𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗒 𝗍𝗈𝗈𝗅 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗎𝗋𝗉𝗈𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝗈𝖽 𝗈𝖿 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝖺𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀. 𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗈 𝗀𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖾𝖿𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗀𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗀𝗁𝗍 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗏𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇. 𝖠𝗇𝖽 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖺 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗆𝖺𝗒 𝖻𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈 𝖺 𝗌𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝗀𝗋𝗈𝗎𝗉 𝗅𝗂𝗄𝖾 𝖺 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝗀𝗋𝗈𝗎𝗉, 𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗍 𝗆𝖺𝗒 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝗍𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝗁𝖺𝗉𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗌𝗌 𝖺𝗎𝖽𝗂𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝗄𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝖺 𝗆𝖺𝗃𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝖾𝗍𝗁𝗇𝗂𝖼 𝗀𝗋𝗈𝗎𝗉 𝗈𝗋 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝗈-𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗆𝗂𝖼 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗌”.

𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝖤𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝖣𝖺𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖭𝖾𝖾𝖽 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖺 𝖱𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝖯𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗒

𝖣𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝖺𝖻𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗇𝗇𝗈𝗏𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗍𝗁𝗐𝖺𝗒𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇, 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖺𝗉𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗀𝖾𝗅𝗒 𝖻𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗈𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍 (𝖥𝗈𝗈𝗌, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦). 𝖳𝗁𝗎𝗌, 𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗈𝗐𝖺𝗋𝖽𝗌 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗀𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝗌𝗂𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗂𝗍 𝗆𝖺𝗒 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗎𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗀𝗁𝗍 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗏𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗈𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖻𝗒 𝖻𝗅𝗎𝗋𝗋𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗅𝗂𝗇𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝗍𝗐𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇. 𝖶𝗁𝗂𝗅𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗇 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗁𝖾𝖽 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝖾𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒 𝗍𝗈𝗈𝗅𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝗍 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺, 𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝗈, 𝖳𝖵, 𝖿𝗂𝗅𝗆 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺, 𝖽𝗂𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺, 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨 𝗎𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖺 𝗁𝗈𝗍𝖻𝖾𝖽 𝖽𝖾𝖻𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝖳𝖾𝖼𝗁 𝖿𝗂𝗀𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖦𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗌 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗅𝖽𝗐𝗂𝖽𝖾 (𝖧𝗈𝗅𝗍, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟢; 𝖦𝗈𝗈𝗀𝗅𝖾 𝖠𝖨, 𝗇.𝖽.).

𝖤𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯 𝗂𝗇 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺

𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝗏𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗁𝗂𝖼 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈 𝗉𝗂𝗀𝗀𝗒𝖻𝖺𝖼𝗄 𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖲𝗍𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖨𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗅𝗅𝗂𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝖲𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖼𝖾 (𝖥𝖺𝖼𝗍 𝖢𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖳𝖾𝖺𝗆, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦); 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖴𝗇𝗂𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖭𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝖧𝗂𝗀𝗁 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖾𝗋 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖱𝖾𝖿𝗎𝗀𝖾𝖾𝗌 (𝖴𝖭𝖧𝖢𝖱) 𝖿𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍 (𝖧𝖺𝗍𝗍𝗈𝗍𝗎𝗐𝖺, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦); 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗏𝗈𝗂𝖼𝖾 𝖼𝗅𝗈𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗎𝖽𝗂𝗈 𝖼𝗅𝗂𝗉 𝗈𝖿 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝖳𝗋𝗎𝗆𝗉 𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈𝗋𝗌𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖠𝗇𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖪𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖣𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗒𝖺𝗄𝖺 (𝖲𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖺𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗂, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦; 𝖬𝖺𝗐𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖺 𝖭𝖾𝗐𝗌, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦); 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖾𝗉𝖿𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝖼𝗅𝗂𝗉 𝗈𝖿 𝖱𝗈𝗁𝖺𝗇𝖺 𝖶𝗂𝗃𝖾𝗐𝖾𝖾𝗋𝖺 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗇𝖾𝗐𝗅𝗒 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝖠𝗇𝗎𝗋𝖺 𝖪𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗋𝖺 𝖣𝗂𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗒𝖺𝗄𝖺 (𝖱𝖾𝗌𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝖶𝗈𝗋𝗅𝖽, 𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦), 𝖾𝗏𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌.

Yet, despite the emergence of such manipulations, the government has taken little to no effort to regulate this kind of content. 𝖳𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗋𝖺𝗂𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗒, 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝗌𝗍 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺 𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝖺𝖽𝗈𝗉𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗀𝗇 𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗈𝗋 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗉 𝖺𝗇 𝖺𝗉𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖺𝖼𝗁 𝗌𝗁𝖺𝗉𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝗈𝗐𝗇 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗑𝗍 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌?

𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝖡𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌: 𝖨𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗁𝗍𝗌 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖠𝗎𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗋’𝗌 𝖴𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖳𝗁𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌

𝖡𝗒 𝖽𝗋𝖺𝗐𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗎𝗉𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗁𝗍𝗌 𝗀𝖺𝗂𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝗏𝗂𝖺 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗍 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖾𝗐𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗎𝖼𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗋’𝗌 𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗀𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌, 𝖺 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗋𝖺 𝗈𝖿 𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗐𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖾𝖽. 𝖢𝗁𝗂𝖾𝖿 𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗆 𝗐𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗉𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗏𝖾𝖽 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗁𝗈𝗐 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗎𝗅𝖽 𝖻𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗉𝖾𝖽 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒 𝖽𝖾𝖿𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝖠𝖨 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨 𝖺𝗉𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗇𝗌 𝗆𝗎𝗋𝗄𝗒; 𝗉𝗁𝗂𝗅𝗈𝗌𝗈𝗉𝗁𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝗁𝗂𝗀𝗁𝗅𝗂𝗀𝗁𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗇𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗎𝗂𝗌𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗌𝗒𝗇𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 𝖺𝗎𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖼 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍; 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗈 𝗁𝗎𝗆𝖺𝗇 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗒 (𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗉𝗈𝗐𝖾𝗋 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗅𝗂𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗒 𝗀𝖺𝗉𝗌), 𝗍𝖾𝖼𝗁𝗇𝗈𝗅𝗈𝗀𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗋𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅, 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅, 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌; 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗏𝖾𝖽 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗐𝖾𝖺𝗉𝗈𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯; 𝗃𝗎𝗋𝗂𝗌𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌; 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗒 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌; 𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖺𝗅 𝖻𝖺𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗀𝖾𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝖽𝖾𝗅𝗏𝖾𝖽 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺’𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝖽𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖲𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝖲𝗍𝖺𝗍𝖾.

𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝖡𝖾𝗌𝗍 𝖶𝖺𝗒 𝖥𝗈𝗋𝗐𝖺𝗋𝖽?

𝖠𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖾𝗐𝖾𝖽, 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗎𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗁𝖾𝗅𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺 𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖠𝖨 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗉𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖺𝗌 𝖮𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖠𝖨 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗌𝗈𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝗆𝖾𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗇𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖺𝗌 𝖬𝖾𝗍𝖺, 𝖳𝗂𝗄𝖳𝗈𝗄, 𝖨𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗆 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖯𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆 𝖷 𝗂𝗌 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖽𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗈 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺’𝗌 𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗌 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖲𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝖲𝗍𝖺𝗍𝖾. 𝖲𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝗂𝗇𝖿𝗅𝗎𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗂𝗌 𝖿𝗎𝗋𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖠𝖨 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗉𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗌 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗀𝗌𝗍 𝖺 𝗅𝖺𝗋𝗀𝖾 𝗇𝗎𝗆𝖻𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝖿 𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗄𝖾𝗍 𝗉𝗅𝖺𝗒𝖾𝗋𝗌. 𝖤𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝗁𝖺𝗋𝗆𝗈𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖾𝖽 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗒 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗇 𝖻𝗅𝖾𝖺𝗄 𝖽𝗎𝖾 𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝗍𝗐𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝖨𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖺 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖯𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗒𝗓𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖲𝖠𝖠𝖱𝖢. 𝖧𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾, 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖺 𝗈𝖿 𝗌𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗒 𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗎𝗉𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗐𝖺𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗌 𝖿𝗎𝗋𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝖺𝗋𝖼𝗁.

𝖨𝗇 𝖲𝗎𝗆𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗒

𝖶𝗁𝗂𝗅𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗌 𝖺 𝗀𝗋𝗈𝗐𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖽 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖨𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅 𝖢𝗈𝗆𝗆𝗎𝗇𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨, 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺 𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗅 𝗋𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗂𝗇𝗌 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝖺𝗇 𝖾𝖿𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄 𝗍𝗈 𝗀𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖱𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝖠𝖨, 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖾 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝖠𝖨𝖦𝖤𝖯 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗀𝗋𝗈𝗐𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗌𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖾𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗌.

𝖱𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗌

(𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟧). 𝖷 (𝖥𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗅𝗒 𝖳𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗋). https://x.com/UNSriLanka/status/1790315270038225115

𝖡𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗇𝖾𝖼𝗄, 𝖢., 𝖫ü𝗍𝗀𝖾, 𝖢., 𝖶𝖺𝗀𝗇𝖾𝗋, 𝖠., & 𝖶𝖾𝗅𝗌𝗁, 𝖲. (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟣). 𝖠𝗇 𝖨𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗈 𝖤𝗍𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗌 𝗂𝗇 𝖱𝗈𝖻𝗈𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖠𝖨. 𝖲𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝖢𝗁𝖺𝗆. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4

𝖥𝖺𝖼𝗍 𝖢𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖳𝖾𝖺𝗆. (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦, 𝖠𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗅 𝟣𝟩). 𝖵𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖨𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗁𝗂𝖼 𝖢𝗅𝖺𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖲𝗎𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗒 𝖱𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖲𝖨𝖲 𝖮𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺𝗇 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖤𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖨𝗌 𝖥𝖺𝖻𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽, 𝖭𝗈𝗍 𝖱𝖾𝖺𝗅! 𝖱𝖾𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗏𝖾𝖽 February 10, 𝟤𝟢𝟤6, 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 https://srilanka.factcrescendo.com/english/viral-infographic-claiming-survey-results-of-sis-over-sri-lankan-presidential-election-is-fabricated-not-real/

𝖥𝖾𝗎𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗅, 𝖲., 𝖧𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗇, 𝖩., 𝖩𝖺𝗇𝗂𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗁, 𝖢., & 𝖹𝗌𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗁, 𝖯. (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟥, 𝖥𝖾𝖻𝗋𝗎𝖺𝗋𝗒). 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨. 𝖡𝗎𝗌 𝖨𝗇𝖿 𝖲𝗒𝗌𝗍 𝖤𝗇𝗀, 𝟨𝟨, 𝟣𝟣𝟣-𝟣𝟤𝟨. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7

𝖱𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗌

(𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟧). 𝖷 (𝖥𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗅𝗒 𝖳𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗋). https://x.com/UNSriLanka/status/1790315270038225115

𝖡𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗇𝖾𝖼𝗄, 𝖢., 𝖫ü𝗍𝗀𝖾, 𝖢., 𝖶𝖺𝗀𝗇𝖾𝗋, 𝖠., & 𝖶𝖾𝗅𝗌𝗁, 𝖲. (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟣). 𝖠𝗇 𝖨𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗈 𝖤𝗍𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗌 𝗂𝗇 𝖱𝗈𝖻𝗈𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖠𝖨. 𝖲𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝖢𝗁𝖺𝗆. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4

𝖥𝖺𝖼𝗍 𝖢𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖼𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗈 𝖳𝖾𝖺𝗆. (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟦, 𝖠𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗅 𝟣𝟩). 𝖵𝗂𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖨𝗇𝖿𝗈𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗉𝗁𝗂𝖼 𝖢𝗅𝖺𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖲𝗎𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗒 𝖱𝖾𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖲𝖨𝖲 𝖮𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖲𝗋𝗂 𝖫𝖺𝗇𝗄𝖺𝗇 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖤𝗅𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖨𝗌 𝖥𝖺𝖻𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽, 𝖭𝗈𝗍 𝖱𝖾𝖺𝗅! 𝖱𝖾𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗏𝖾𝖽 February 10, 𝟤𝟢𝟤6, 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 https://srilanka.factcrescendo.com/english/viral-infographic-claiming-survey-results-of-sis-over-sri-lankan-presidential-election-is-fabricated-not-real/

𝖥𝖾𝗎𝖾𝗋𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗀𝖾𝗅, 𝖲., 𝖧𝖺𝗋𝗍𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗇, 𝖩., 𝖩𝖺𝗇𝗂𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗁, 𝖢., & 𝖹𝗌𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖼𝗁, 𝖯. (𝟤𝟢𝟤𝟥, 𝖥𝖾𝖻𝗋𝗎𝖺𝗋𝗒). 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖠𝖨. 𝖡𝗎𝗌 𝖨𝗇𝖿 𝖲𝗒𝗌𝗍 𝖤𝗇𝗀, 𝟨𝟨, 𝟣𝟣𝟣-𝟣𝟤𝟨. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7