DA's are pushing for this for the power to arbitrarily shake down internet businesses operating within bounds of the law. I suspect it's all a power and money thing to harass companies that do not defer to them, and create another tool to ensure the 'right' companies win and the ones that don't play ball get shaken up. It's building a godamn protection racquet.

Case in point -- Kamala Harris loved this in California. She signed letters to senate requesting holes carved in Section 230 protections, expressing explicit detail understanding of how these protections work in written form. After that documented understanding she would go on to harass and bully companies operating within the bounds of Section 230 protections. For example, she aggressively targeted Backpage going so far as to arrest their CEO without cause who went on to countersue leaving taxpayers on the hook for wrongful arrest damages. The legal case against Backpage documents a company operating completely above board with Section 230 including sample case where a fake illegal position was made to the site, the company notified of the item, the company review and took down the submission thanking the law enforcement agency for bringing it to their attention, within reasonable timeframe defined by Section 230. That was the core argument against the company -- a detailed example of operating a website and handling when illegal content is posted to the site in a timely and reasonable way.

For further reading about Kamala's adventures shaking down lawful businesses Techdirt covered the story over the months, search her name for good detail from a legal perspective.

Another example is the entertainment industries attempted use of DA's to shake down Google. The Sony Hack revealed extensive collusion between entertainment industry officials and DA hassling google, going so far as to draft legal filings on behalf of the DA. Had this hole in Section 230 existed it would provide a sufficiently ambiguous tool as to have effectively shaken down Google at that time.

Then there's the witch hunt of aggressive DA's going after Aaron Schwartz. This is another legal weapon that can be leveled against disruptive visionaries building the next Google, or major online commerce, that upsets the established accepted internet companies.

Can just round up the innovator and harass them ad nauseum. Don't like that competitor? Just hire reputation management team from across the country to bombard their site with links to copyright infringing items. Generate huge costs a small company can't handle and effectively put them out of business. Monopoly 101. Once you're big enough, create trenches of regulation and other hurdles a new smaller company can't climb.

This is an incredibly powerful exemption that can be easily misused by a body of government we've had many examples in recent years of abusing their powers as a shake down technique. This is an area of government that needs a fresh dose of light and fresh air cleaning up the bad actors that have come to inhabit that space. Instead handing over new tools to behave VERY badly for personal profit is a terrible ideas. This creates a lot of incentive to shake down innocent companies on behalf of possible large donors, then run for Senate as the payoff.