If only we could all be as enlightened as you. Tell me, in this fantasy scenario you’ve concocted, did Joe Biden give a speech to Congress bragging about how he’d use this law to take down content that is “unfair” to him? No?
Sorry if that seemed rude, but it ticks me off to see someone subtly bragging about how intelligent they are.
Oh, that's easy: The well-documented real-world things My Team is doing right now are all justified when weighed against totally fictional debunked things which I have intensely imagined Your Team doing or attempting in an alternate history.
These actions are required to prevent a repeat of the Bowling Green Massacre, the Jade Helm takeover of Texas, and the quantum Pizza Sex Dungeon. /s
Does this act apply to things that are not nudity? It seems like the definition of “intimate physical depiction” would pretty much restrict it to that.
>The online services that do the best job of protecting user privacy could also be under threat from Take It Down. While the bill exempts email services, it does not provide clear exemptions for private messaging apps, cloud storage, and other end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) services. Services that use end-to-end encryption, by design, are not able to access or view unencrypted user content. How could such services comply with the takedown requests mandated in this bill? Platforms may respond by abandoning encryption entirely in order to be able to monitor content—turning private conversations into surveilled spaces.
"They" means a long line of leaders who see our basic rights as obstacles, "our" means Americans although it's probably the same in some other places, and "freedom" means our ability to communicate with each other, without censorship or a secret officer reading our private letters.
It is also well known now that Twitter literally had a hotline with the FBI and whitehouse, gave them their own web interface to remove posts on Twitter.
Pretty much every law that extends police authority and surveillance is just like this (one thing that both parties can universally agree on). They are intentionally wide open so that the executive can apply them selectively however they like without legal recourse of the victim. DOGE was also born from a legal construct that was created by a democratic government (Obama if I remember correctly). Not to mention control over the discourse on social media by politically motivated moderators (reddit is particularly egregious in this regard). "Democrats" do this shit in exactly the same way and they love it... until they lose control of it and it hits them in the face. Now they're finding out what it's like on the receiving end and my compassion is limited.
DMCA's takedown and safe harbor provisions spawn a lot of notices against critical media protected by fair use by the people the media is criticizing and because of the way that law is worded and how it's been implemented by platforms it often works, even if for just a few days that can completely kneecap the success and spread of a video or article.
I don't think taking a stand against making giant technology companies (that people generally don't like much) work to combat revenge porn (which literally everybody finds revolting) is going to be the political winner this Verge editorial thinks it will be.
Especially annoying: the "no matter how carefully crafted the bill is" framing, which not only makes the argument non-falsifiable, but also cuts off discussion rooted in what the bill actually says and ensures that we're going to stay fixed in the orbit of a pointless ideological debate.
If someone claims you posted porn of them, do you think the giant company is going to take the time, money, and resources to give you the benefit of the doubt and investigate? Or are they simply going to ban your account with no recourse?
The DMCA and copyright strikes don't work correctly and are rife with abuse. I definitely don't expect this to work as intended, either.
The problem is that you have POTUS announcing his intent on using this in a deliberate way not as you describe so he can go after people saying things about him he does not like. Whatever you wanted to say about the law, its true intent was made clear when he said the quiet part out loud on national television
I don't understand why you'd staple an analysis of (real!) flaws in the Take It Down Act to a conclusion that it "doesn't matter" whether the Take It Down Act is a good bill because "any bill that regulates internet content" is a bad idea. Doesn't each half of the article undercut the other?
It's worth reading the bill, S.146.[1] It's Ted Cruz's bill, and it passed the Senate last year, but too late in the session to go to the House. Seems to be the same bill this session.
It's structured much like DMCA takedown, but with no safeguards. There's no way to challenge a removal and force a put-back, as there is with the DMCA.
There's no penalty for making a false claim.
There's both a civil forfeiture provision, and criminal provisions. If it had roughly the same terms as the DMCA [2] it wouldn't be so bad.
It only applies to images, at least. If you run a site that allows uploading content, for compliance purposes it might be useful to have a classifier recognize any pictures which include administration officials and blank them out.
The article mentions that "it’s internet safety law season again", where there is a long history of bad bipartisan internet censorship bills [1], such as SOPA/PIPA, FOSTA/SESTA.
The difference is that those were 'just' bad laws in a somewhat functioning legislature, while these laws indeed look like fascistic implements.
I don't understand the logic behind criminalizing images rather than focusing strictly on the harm caused. Equating them as 1:1 seems absurd. This standard already exists in civil cases? Maybe ban causation vs coorelation fallacies in legislation instead.
35 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 95.1 ms ] threadSorry if that seemed rude, but it ticks me off to see someone subtly bragging about how intelligent they are.
These actions are required to prevent a repeat of the Bowling Green Massacre, the Jade Helm takeover of Texas, and the quantum Pizza Sex Dungeon. /s
FOH 28 day old account with 6 karma.
In particular, it's an encryption ban:
>The online services that do the best job of protecting user privacy could also be under threat from Take It Down. While the bill exempts email services, it does not provide clear exemptions for private messaging apps, cloud storage, and other end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) services. Services that use end-to-end encryption, by design, are not able to access or view unencrypted user content. How could such services comply with the takedown requests mandated in this bill? Platforms may respond by abandoning encryption entirely in order to be able to monitor content—turning private conversations into surveilled spaces.
Who is "our"?
What "freedom" do you think you have?
EDIT: I’ve found that if you argue in good faith your comment won’t be removed. Are you? Or are you just stirring the pot?
It is also well known now that Twitter literally had a hotline with the FBI and whitehouse, gave them their own web interface to remove posts on Twitter.
Pretty much every law that extends police authority and surveillance is just like this (one thing that both parties can universally agree on). They are intentionally wide open so that the executive can apply them selectively however they like without legal recourse of the victim. DOGE was also born from a legal construct that was created by a democratic government (Obama if I remember correctly). Not to mention control over the discourse on social media by politically motivated moderators (reddit is particularly egregious in this regard). "Democrats" do this shit in exactly the same way and they love it... until they lose control of it and it hits them in the face. Now they're finding out what it's like on the receiving end and my compassion is limited.
Especially annoying: the "no matter how carefully crafted the bill is" framing, which not only makes the argument non-falsifiable, but also cuts off discussion rooted in what the bill actually says and ensures that we're going to stay fixed in the orbit of a pointless ideological debate.
"We should institute a federal board of candidacy to keep all these corrupt politicians off the ballot."
"We should allow the state governor to have an un-pardon, to send criminals like OJ Simpson to jail even after they get off on a technicality."
"We should allow police to search your person without a warrant if they won't be able to find you later on."
The DMCA and copyright strikes don't work correctly and are rife with abuse. I definitely don't expect this to work as intended, either.
> "And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody."
All that Beeple Trump art just became illegal.
[0] https://www.eff.org/takedowns
This is why.
It's structured much like DMCA takedown, but with no safeguards. There's no way to challenge a removal and force a put-back, as there is with the DMCA. There's no penalty for making a false claim. There's both a civil forfeiture provision, and criminal provisions. If it had roughly the same terms as the DMCA [2] it wouldn't be so bad.
It only applies to images, at least. If you run a site that allows uploading content, for compliance purposes it might be useful to have a classifier recognize any pictures which include administration officials and blank them out.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146
[2] https://www.copyright.gov/512/
The difference is that those were 'just' bad laws in a somewhat functioning legislature, while these laws indeed look like fascistic implements.