[pashadee]

"Deliberately blind" implies the use of encryption (by a platform or provider).

One solution I think is to provide a user side toggle or option to enable encryption. Then it is not deliberate from the provider's perspective, but a user choice/preference. And it is not unreasonable for the user to expect privacy (encryption), ergo this choice defaults to encrypted.

At worst the provider is intentionally blinded by the user, and not deliberately blind.

But do we move the argument back to whether including (the choice of) encryption to mean deliberately blind?

[mindslight]

I think that is putting an awful lot of faith in a few legal hypotheticals. If this draconian bill passes, companies mitigate the damage this way, and things shake out that way in the courts, then great. I just think before the bill even passes, it's much better to focus on nipping it in the bud. The reason we have the first amendment is because by the time government is trying to police speech based on its results, things have gone horribly wrong and it's better to make them to address those root causes rather than go even further down the rabbit hole of authoritarianism.