Earlier quoted context omitted.
The line is blurry. There was an immediate and emphatic appeal to the regulators, and the way the SEC works is often by encouraging self regulation. The CEO of the NASDAQ even went on air to ask for more SEC regulation. This isn't unusual, it's pretty much how "government intervention" via the SEC, and a lot of other regulatory bodies, actually works.
So, the SEC is hands off and encourages self regulation, so any instance of self regulation is considered government intervention?
There are very occasional "landmark" regulations, often legislated, that are explicit. EG Sarbanes-Oxley.
Day-2-day, the SEC works mostly by signalling. They might make a policy declaration, or send letters to CEOs. They'll note things in periodic firm reviews. Publicly raise an eyebrow. Take action against or investigate one firm and publish findings. Rarely are specifically worded edicts issued.
Regulating bodies are designed to work largely through pressure instead of (ironically) through regulations. This is by design. Regulators are usually created in response to firms having won the loophole cat and mouse games, and the prohibitive complexity of actual regulations. If government wanted rules, they can just legislate directly instead of delegating to a regulator.
"Compliance" is often about staying away from trouble by playing a sort of guessing game. It doesn't mean that it's "hands off."