It's a bit more fundamental than that. I think the point I'd like to try and make is that you can't really slice and dice the Internet up into different bits. People consume the Internet as a kind of continuous spectrum. They'll get up, they'll look at their friend's Facebook's page, so that friend on Facebook has published something. They'll then follow somebody on Twitter who has also published something and that person on Twitter may have -- Stephen Fry has nearly 4 million users. He can reach more people in an hour than I can. So is he going to be regulated? Then you have bloggers, and then you move through news publishers and then obviously Fleet Street, or what used to be Fleet Street, is just one portion of the people publishing news online.
As Mr Murdoch said, in 20 years' time there may not be any newspapers. So it seems to me odd that everything's moving away -- newspapers become quite frankly a smaller part of the media landscape every year so why are we obsessing just with one area? Am I going to end up with a situation in 10 years' time where MailOnline -- or 20 years' time -- is subject to one kind of regulation because we used to publish a newspaper, and other publishers I'm in competition with are subject to an entirely different method of regulation? It's the big elephant in the room, and I think we're looking backwards fighting the last war rather than worrying about the troubles and problems coming down the track.
Going back to your question, yes, bloggers are just one part of the Internet landscape and it's a good example. How do you compel a blogger to comply? He may, as you say, think it's worthwhile belonging to something that gives him a gold standard or a kite mark, or he may think it's more trouble than it's worth.