It's not surprising to say I think any Internet provider would want to give this considerable thought, but just to start that process off, it does seem to me that looking at the PCC judgments in most of those cases that citizens typically place different stock on a piece of content on the basis of whether it's posted on a social network like Facebook or printed in a newspaper.
In other words, people were in some cases very comfortable to have material online on a social network service like ours, it wasn't causing them a problem, but the moment that it was put into an editorialised authoritative source like a newspaper, it became significantly problematic for them.
So I think that if one is moving towards the kind of model that you've discussed with ourselves and other witnesses, for us it would be important to distinguish editorialised published content from what one might call chatter on the Internet, and that to make an adjudication about editorialised published content would in turn feed through to the Internet platforms. If the original material were corrected, that in turn would feed through to anyone who linked to that original material in an editorialised publication.
If the model is to somehow make judgments about the kind of chatter that people do on Internet sites, I think my starting point would be to have concerns about whether that's workable and whether proportionate to the offence that's being caused.