I should note that the legislation actually initially did not include user content. It was during clause-by-clause consideration of an earlier iteration of the bill that the bill was changed to remove an exception that had previously excluded it.
I think the concerns were real. In fact, once the bill left this committee, left the House and went to the Senate, the Senate conducted extensive hearings on that same bill and actually proposed an amendment to try to directly address that issue. I thought it was unfortunate that government or the House ultimately rejected that proposed amendment, sent it through as they did and now have been forced, essentially—if they really do want to exclude user content—to put this in a policy direction.
For the moment, the policy direction rules, but a policy direction, of course, doesn't have the same kind of power that the legislation does. I think that's why many had raised this issue. Sometimes we're told there was really nothing to be concerned about, yet the reality was that it was quite clearly there. There were easy fixes, quite frankly, that I think would have maintained the policy objectives that the government and other groups had, while at the same time ensuring that there were better safeguards about including user content within the scope of the law.