themselves could be fined. the companies exist at the moment in a world where they would say, "well, we don't write "the extremist content," that you've got to go after the person who's doing it. "we're just merely hosting it." but they play a central role in recommending and promoting that content. so what we want to do is... do you want hold them to account as publishers? yes, because they... but then it gets extraordinarily complicated very quickly, doesn't it? i mean, on the face of it, it sounds fairly straightforward and simple, and you point at the way in which in the past, social media has been used to propagate terrorist thought, child abuse, many illegal acts. but the grey area is this stuff which isn't exactly illegal, but you deem to be harmful. and ijust wonder how you expect even 0fcom or any other government regulator to be able to draw clear lines which say, "this is acceptable, "but this just isn't." this is a really important point about the draft bill as it currently stands and why, in the joint committee report we published in december, we recommended making quite a big change here, because i think one of the problems with the bill as currently drafted is you have these grey