> Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all "otherwise objectionable" language... This disallows the co

> Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all "otherwise objectionable" language... This disallows the common practice of open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky". Proposed section (c)(1)(b) removes the safe harbor except for moderation criteria on the list in proposed (c)(2)(a), which is: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful" > Provide Definition of Good Faith. Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of "good faith" which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation... Open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky" are at risk of not being judged "particular" enough, which is a requirement of proposed section (g)(5)(a), meaning that sites with open-ended criteria could be judged as "not in good faith" according to this definition, and lose their safe harbor.