Sure, definitely. I think that there are a few areas where we could look at that. We could look at that domestically, where there are individuals marching in the street for one cause—and we've been active on raising concerns about the characterization of any support for Palestinian human rights as being in support of terrorism—but a march for another issue that unfurls in the exact same way as the exact same call for an action would not be characterized that way. We think of the Occupy movement. There's a concern that, even though there's no direct call for violence, because of the stigma of simply labelling something as potentially being in support of terrorism, it could be viewed as a harm.
I'd like to expand that, too, because one of our concerns is how this will be applied internationally. There are countries that would say that human rights defenders in Egypt or people resisting in Ukraine are defined by other countries as terrorists. How would the platforms be expected to decide how to monitor all that? If it was limited simply to incitement to violence without that subjective decision-making around it, it would be a lot more clear for the platforms. It would be clearer for the audience, and it would also be easier to challenge it when it comes to the digital safety commission if there are any issues.