 So these platforms that they're censoring things, they're only censoring things that they disagree with, right? Or their centralized masters disagree with, right? They're not censoring to do anything other than social engineer, right? Because what I think is, Horan, this is people sprouting hateful rhetoric concerning other people. Is it horrendous? Yes, right? Should we censor it? Absolutely not, okay? There are many horrendous things in our societies. Should we be censoring all of them? No, should we censoring any of them? Well, if they're hurting other people, aside from like someone being offended is not the justification to censor their free speech, right? It absolutely is not, right? So horrendous things, you can outlaw them in terms of if they hurt other people. There are many horrendous things that are criminal. You get thrown in jail for them, right? Driving drunk is a horrendous thing. There's laws against it, right? We don't need censorship. It doesn't make sense, right? It doesn't work. On that front, if you say, okay, drunk driving is horrendous. There's laws against it. You can throw people in jail. And then someone writes a book about a character that drinks and drives. Censorship would be banning the book because we're not allowed to talk about people driving drunk, right? The right course of action is criminalize it, criminalize the behavior of driving drunk, not the discussion of people driving drunk, right? So there's a serious distinction between these two things. People think that anything they disagree with is horrendous, should be censored. That is a fallacy. Nature is brutal. You can't censor brutality. It doesn't work. It's part of its ingrained nature, right?