I'd like to come down please. There are a bunch of things that have been said that I have haven't, I haven't had the opportunity to weigh in on. And I'm gonna take liberty and answer, part of the question that Eric addressed to Genevieve. It is absolutely bonkers. to me, to compare the 1975 information environment to what was what is happening now, and okay bonkers is not fair. I think that it is not correct. To do that, because what we have in this environment is something far different, and I want to talk about amplification right and and and talk about this as a matter of conduct, not speech, this is kind of bizarre romanticization of the content that is trafficking through these companies as if it is speech right. Genevieve appears in a great Emily bazelon piece today where this issue comes up in the context of the way in which the Supreme Court has enlarge a conception of what is protected speech but but but never mind if I'm never mind if you know this is not conduct. Let's talk talk about amplification, which is what the, the monarchy bill is addressed to and and I want to talk about something that is in a different setting so, so, with regards to force versus Facebook that was a terrorism case, and the underlying statute, the material support statute. If there is no problem here. Why not allow 230 to go. You know it melt the material support standard has never met by plaintiffs under the underlying statute Why worry about two thirds. But more than that, there are a variety of other settings that underscore what amplification entails. And I was writing two or three years ago about automated decision making systems that these intermediaries rely on to distribute content in ways that are never never been possible before. And that speakers themselves didn't didn't know how to make possible, and the cases I talked about were in the context of housing discrimination made in a made possible in Facebook's ad manager, and how do they do this how does Facebook do this, they first get a customer list from the advertiser, and then they enlarge it by looking at creating look alike audiences. Okay, that's something that is beyond the pale for anything nevermind the 1970s beyond the pale of what most people are doing today. And they also deliver this content to people who are likely to get it right they're likely to be most interested in it and Facebook is making that decision, no one else is making that decision. That is what amplification entails. That does not look like speech to me, that looks like that to me looks like material contribution. What's interesting is that plaintiffs brought this case after the markup did a wonderful series of studies and pieces from 2016 to 2018, and that led to a case that was filed by civil rights groups against Facebook's ad manager, and Facebook settled the case. We never got to find out what material contribution looks like whether amplification like this is allowed. And, and for me to associate this kind of commercial activity with what has happened in the 70s is not right and one more thing Alan I didn't get to wait, what the other carve outs were I mean, there are arguments for the you know about current bills and why there might be problems with carve outs. For what it's worth, we see carve outs and all in a variety of areas of law. We see it in tax we see it in copyright. It isn't among them is. So you mentioned the foster phenomenon, the hirono bill that is floating out these days senator Rona bill is addressed to civil rights violations, which by the way are not protected speech like you can't. there's some things you can't say right in housing markets defamation is always the sort of thing you can't say, but wrongful any activity that leads to wrongful death. Any trust suit suits for injunctive relief. I mean this is what the carve outs entail and that is actually far closer to what is happening in DC, and I suspect we'll talk more about that later.