This isn't inviting Section 230 reform, as some are arguing. It's a move to get out ahead of it. From the DOJ's proposed 230 legislation[0]: >>The second cate

This isn't inviting Section 230 reform, as some are arguing. It's a move to get out ahead of it. From the DOJ's proposed 230 legislation[0]: >>The second category of amendments is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation claims. >>Section 230 immunity is meant to incentivize and protect online Good Samaritans. Platforms that purposely solicit and facilitate harmful criminal activity — in effect, online Bad Samaritans — should not receive the benefit of this immunity. Nor should a platform receive blanket immunity for continuing to host known criminal content on its services, despite repeated pleas from victims to take action. Enforcing a hacked materials policy is fully consistent with the DOJ's proposed change. It's a classic strategy to curb potential regulation - clean up your act to show that you don't need to be regulated. [0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-unveils-proposed-section-230-legislation https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-unveils-pr...