> it includes particularly controversial language holding companies accountable for conduct they don’t report if they “deliberately blind” themselves to the violations.
So it sounds like the "actual knowledge" is false advertising that doesn't reflect the actual dynamic of the bill.
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?
Signal, which is deliberately E2EE, would not be considered deliberately blind to drug sales, as that isn't its main use. Tor might be in hot water and might be required to block specific .onion addresses. Of course new ones will pop up, but the Tor project will be accidentally blind to those, not deliberately.