Trying to define "all" is an impossibility; but, by virtue of having taken no action whatsoever, answering that question is irrelevant in the context of this particular judgment: Tiktok took no action, so the definition of "all" is irrelevant. See also for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41393921

In general, judges will be ultimately responsible for evaluating whether "any", "sufficient", "appropriate", etc. actions were taken in each future case judgement they make. As with all things legalese, it's impossible to define with certainty a specific degree of action that is the uniform boundary of acceptable; but, as evident here, "none" is no longer permissible in that set.

(I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)

Any good will attempt at censoring would have been as a reasonable defense even if technically they don't censor 100% of them, such as blocking videos with the word "blackout" on their title or manually approving videos with such thing, but they did nothing instead.