It does.
Thank you very much, Mr. Ripley.
My comment is this: If you have a bad player, essentially what this loophole would do is give them an opportunity to exempt themselves from provisions of the act. Now at the same time, I think perhaps over years and with the expenditure of a lot of resources, there may be ways in certain cases to have them correspond to the letter of this loophole. It just seems to be better not to create the loophole in the first place and create that uneven playing field.
If we all support the principle that the web giants have to provide for that level playing field, I don't understand why we would create a loophole that actually does the opposite, so I'll be voting against this amendment.
Thank you.