Yeah. I don't know if they gave specific instruction, but essentially what was happening was the New York Post had put up. The New York Post had put up this article and Twitter had censored it completely. Like, you couldn't share it, you couldn't post it. You couldn't send it in a DM, by the way. They do that. By the way, there was something that I tried to send somebody in a DM, and I couldn't send it in a DM. They had made that article unavailable to share, even in direct messages. That was a different article. But it was. It was something like that. And so Twitter had completely censored it. It turned out it was absolutely a legitimate story. And Facebook said he had some version of what he said. It sounded like he was, you know, he was kind of candy coating it is basically saying they censored it, but they didn't censor it. You know, like, well, we took a different approach. We limited its dispersal or limited its distribution, which I don't know how they do it. When he said it, he, like, said it without revealing too much of what their whole system is, how they shadow ban things and how they.