 Yeah, look, there's still some good case law and doctrine out there under this rubric of jawboning that says, look, the government cannot take a third party and compel them and force them to censor someone when the government itself can't do it. This decision recognizes that doctrine, but just says the evidence here wasn't clear enough. I think as a practical matter, you're probably right. This does effectively, whether they want to say it's standing and therefore doesn't substantively change the doctrine or not, it does sort of take a little bit of the teeth