 The problem with the way the government behaved, suppressing even true speech, even just regular scientific debate, it undermined the public trust in these institutions, like the CDC, like the U.S. Surgeon General's Office. And as a result, the government lost the ability to effectively counter misinformation like that with more speech. And I think that's my—I mean, I think that's the right thing. If the government is telling their—the honest truth is best they know how, and they build up trust with the public as a result of it, there's not going to be a big problem with misinformation. People will say wrong things all the time, but that's not—that's not the problem. The problem is the inability to counter it with trustworthy sources. Free speech allows that the kind of suppression of speech we had basically undermines the capacity to deal with it. Kate, any comment from you on the question? I just want to point out that you just said that the government should build an institution that can measure these types of things, and that is literally like kind of one of the things that the CDC is in charge of doing. And so the fact that this is something that kind of—the fact that this was something that was happening and that the government was putting in support, and also that one of the recommendations in the giant record that you make mention of in the Missouri v. Biden case was that a lot of these requests were essentially that Twitter didn't answer them by—or Twitter or Facebook or whatever didn't answer them by taking down speech. Often they would put counter speech up. They would allow something like the chips and vaccines type of thing to go up, and then they would put a label on it that said something effectively like, this has been disputed by so-and-so, and we're not sure if this is accurate information. And that was also called censorship. And so that is something that I think that—what you just said is something that you've said the opposite for it, and that people who have supported and said that these claims are censorship is not—I mean, this can't all be censorship. Everything that is like happening can't all be censorship, and it can't be having speech and counter speech for the government. Can't both be— Kate, they banned vaccine-injured groups from talking to each other at the request of the government. Who? Who is that? They, being the Biden administration, forced the Facebook to do that. Forced Facebook to do what? It's absolutely in the records of the Missouri v. Biden case. Not only that. I'd say like the way that they—in the hand-handed way, they forced the social media companies to tag false information and disinformation actually, I think, spread further distrust, right? So they put—go see what the CDC is saying on absolutely true things. So essentially saying, look, what this regular Joe is saying online is wrong, even if it was—it's just a link to a peer-reviewed paper. And they put it on these like vaccines are microchipped. I think it was an absolute—the way that the government regulated speech online, censored speech online, absolutely fueled the distrust of a significant fraction of the public about the vaccines. It was an absolute disaster for public health communication. But you just said that counter speech was the way to solve the problem of allowing First Amendment protected speech that was wrong to stay up. I didn't say that this was counter speech. I'm saying that what they did was censoring. I'm saying that if they wanted to build— What was censoring? The labels that you say are counter speech are now also censorship. No, what was—no, I didn't say that. You said that. What I said was that the Biden administration's demand to put the labels on was censorship. It was defamation of people's—even when they were saying correct things, whether true or false, those labels went up. The Biden administration's demands to put the counter speech isn't, I get to be there as the government right in front of you every time you say something. That's not counter speech. Counter speech is that you have a CDC that says we've done a scientific study. Here's the thing. And they buy advertising on the platform. They have public PSAs. They have other mechanisms other than intruding on how the social media companies present and regulate the speech that they have. What they did was absolutely censorship. They prevented vaccine-injured people from talking to each other. They forced Facebook to take down speech of vaccine-injured people. What do you think was going to happen to them? They're not going to start trusting the government on this. I was wondering, just Kato, you want to—yeah. All right, well, next question.