Both things can be true.
They want stable rules they can follow, which will limit their liability as long as they stay within them.
They also would like those rules to be as restrictive as possible towards their competitors.
They want stable rules they can follow, which will limit their liability as long as they stay within them.
They also would like those rules to be as restrictive as possible towards their competitors.
I'm quite sure that if there wasn't the existential threat of a lack of a moat, they would not be pushing for regulations at all.
It's really hard to take these companies seriously or at face value about anything they say.