I think the issue is the impact of the Internet on other business models for the media, that where other formats have been unsupported and where advertising is moving from, say, the classified section of a newspaper to online, but without the associated potential investment in journalism, I think that's a structural problem because then you have to consider whether that advertising which used to support aspects of the media, what it is supporting and whether that creates a gap in it.
But, I mean, my work on intermediary censorship I think demonstrates that there are plenty of examples where decisions are made which are not in the best interests of freedom of expression by online intermediaries and sometimes that's a degree of prudence and you don't want to be too critical of those who are trying to protect their own role in investment, but if the question is: what delivers the greatest degree of individual freedom of expression, then there is a need to have clear terms and conditions for users, methods of resolution that do not involve long trips to the courts, expectations that are community wide.
So one of the -- successful online media, particularly those that have user engagement, have a sense that people respect one another's views, that they do not try and embroil web posts in legal difficulty, that they do not appropriate the work of others and so on. When you see the Internet at its best, it's where that culture is part of the online space. That is not universal.
The more people go online, I think some of those cultural ideas become challenged in different ways, but finding ways to use that as part of what we talk about, freedom of expression, there are good examples of things happening online and of the ability to communicate being opened up, and it's important not to lose sight of that.
But yes, market censorship can and does exist online as it does in the press.