I believe what EFF and Mike Masnick have to say about it: it's the most <i>forseeably</i> abusable internet censorship law (so far), and it's a crying shame HN isn't confident enough to look past the good intention of it to recognize that.<p>How have DMCA takedowns gone? How many upstanding developers have been nuked, without recourse, by some invalid or malevolent false report? How many times over and over[0] has HN <i>loudly lamented</i> the DMCA takedowns, decried how awful it is to have state censorship—and one without any meaningful adversarial process?<p>Well, here we are again: <i>"The takedown provision also lacks critical safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests"</i>.<p>If courts don't strike this down, this might end up becoming DMCA for the whole of society. It'll certainly be used by politicians to silence critics. It'll be overrun by trolls. You'll see the results, and you'll hate them.<p>> <i>"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.”"</i><p>[0] <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dmca&type=all" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dmca&type=all</a>
I'd never heard of this act [1], and the article frames it in a way that is not especially informative, though they have an excellent page on it here. [2] The law is being passed with complete unanimity in all houses (409-2 in the House, unanimous in the Senate), which is a rarity in modern times. Quoting the EFF as well as why they are opposed to it:<p>- "The takedown provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The takedown provision also lacks critical safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored."<p>So sexual or intimate themed memes which use realistic looking imagery may end up being able to be taken down. I also find myself disagreeing with the EFF here in spite of generally being a tremendous supporter of their work. In particular their main argument is that there are existing laws which work for this issue, without introducing new potentially abusable legislation:<p>- "If a deepfake is used for criminal purposes, then criminal laws will apply. If a deepfake is used to pressure someone to pay money to have it suppressed or destroyed, extortion laws would apply. For any situations in which deepfakes were used to harass, harassment laws apply. There is no need to make new, specific laws about deepfakes in either of these situations."<p>But I think on this issue one should not need to suffer some form of measurable loss or suffering to want intimate/sexual images removed from a site, let alone then having to go through the legal system and file a lawsuit to achieve such.<p>[1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act</a><p>[2] - <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/04/congress-passes-take-it-down-act-despite-major-flaws" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/04/congress-passes-take-i...</a>
Aaron Swartz showed us why we must fight back against these laws. He has spun so much in his grave this week, you'd think he's trying to invent a new power source.<p>I understand the horrors and so-called purpose this new act is trying to address, but the genie is out of the stable diffusion and successors' bottle.<p>Just this weekend, Trump signed an executive order declaring and celebrating World Intellectual Property Day [0], the kind of day IIPA and DMCA would have their lovechild conceived, while creepy uncles ACTA, TPP, TRIPS, and SOPA/PIPA lurked and maybe even watched in the attic.<p>The TAKE IT DOWN Act fits right in with this family reunion, handing those in power another tool to censor the internet under the guise of protecting "intimate images." Its vague net is so wide, it'll have even more platforms spooked into nuking fair use or satire just to dodge legal heat. It's no coincidence that censorship goes hand in hand with IP laws, control the content, monitor what people are submitting. This is exactly why people are building distributed tech like IPFS or ActivityPub and federated networks to keep information flowing, not locked behind government filters or takedown ultimatums.<p>Before you know it, it will be obscene to disagree with those in charge.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/world-intellectual-property-day-2025/" rel="nofollow">https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/worl...</a>
seems overly broad and can jail publishers of any content deemed inappropriate. eg melania nudes = el savadorian prison etc.<p>that video of donald sucking elon's toes probably counts.
Related:<p><i>Take It Down Act: A Flawed Attempt to Protect Victims That'll Lead to Censorship</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43296886">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43296886</a> - March 2025 (38 comments)<p><i>The Take It Down Act isn't a law, it's a weapon</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43293573">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43293573</a> - March 2025 (30 comments)<p><i>The "Take It Down" Act</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43274656">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43274656</a> - March 2025 (99 comments)
"...he would use the law to censor his critics." The most legitmate and most legally protected speech is political speech. This cannot possibly be legal.
Are we ignoring the fact that deepfakes, while despicable, are protected expression the same way that hand-drawn caricature cartoons that depict their subjects in an unflattering light are?<p>There is no line.
Here's the text.<p><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146/text" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146...</a><p>I can't identify where EFFs concerns are coming from. There's a specific limitation of liability for online platforms and the entire process appears to be complaint driven and requires quite a bit of evidence from the complaintant.<p>What actually concerns me in this bill?<p>> (B) INVOLVING MINORS.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable individual who is a minor with intent to—<p>> “(i) abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the minor; or<p>> “(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.<p>> “(C) EXCEPTIONS.—Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to—<p>> “(i) a lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of—<p>> “(I) a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State; or<p>> “(II) an intelligence agency of the United States;<p>Wut? Why do you need this? Are we the baddies?