9 ms·

The "Take It Down" Act

152 points by panarky 2y ago

userbinator 2y ago
Whichever the ruling party is, it seems to never be one that actually supports free speech.
- seandoe 2y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Maybe because it _is_ how things work, not seemingly.
- Spivak 2y ago
  Depends on what you consider free speech to be I suppose. The left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. Neither is more correct than the other and we have plenty of examples of both in our laws. Rules of the road and FCC spectrum allocations being pretty easy examples of individual freedom being traded for collective freedom. The last administration was far from perfect but I think they upheld their view of free speech quite well in terms of policy. This administration is on a revenge tour right now and is taking a "free as in I can say whatever I want" power trip so I don't think we'll know how they do until they cool off.
  - uhgfdrt 2y ago
    > left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. This is incredibly incorrect. > right prefers a "free as in anarchy" The right wing of USA politics claims this but clearly act in opposition to this claim. Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics.
    - eru 2y ago
      > Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics. Depends on what you mean by 'left' and 'anarchy'. See eg anarcho-capitalists as an example that most people would see as 'right' and that uses the term 'anarchy'. (I'm explicitly not saying that their use of 'anarchy' is the correct definition of the term, just pointing out that at least a substantial number of people use a definition of 'anarchy' that makes this concept possible for them.)
      - some_furry 2y ago
        Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism creates hierarchies. Anarchy is a rejection of hierarchies, because it creates rulers.
        dartos 2y ago
        Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? How could you enforce communism under anarchy?
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? Communism implies anarchism. > How could you enforce communism under anarchy? Communism, as a state, is the hypothetical self-sustaining stateless end-state envisioned by Communism, the ideology. Socialism (an intermediate state in the theory), and State Capitalism (an intermediate state—and one most real regimes claiming Communist ideology get stuck in—in practice) may need enforcement, Communism, almost by definition, does not (whether it os attainable is, of course, a different question.)
        x-complexity 2y ago
        > > Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? > Communism implies anarchism. The economic system of communism in no way implies that it would be achieved via anarchic means; It only outlines that the participants in the system share resources towards achieving the common goals of everyone involved. How it should be done has been left as an unfortunate "left as an exercise to the reader". Anarchic forces may be one way of doing so, but it is in no way implied by communism.
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    I think it's more fair to say that liberals believe that the 1A protects speaking truth to power, while the conservative idea is more the 1A protects saying things people don't like. America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals, and within the countries founding document -- the declaration of independence, the liberal idea of "social contract" was encoded. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) Liberals are suspicious of speech that violates the social contract, such as speech that is a prelude to violating other people's, like transgender people's, pursuit of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If you use your right to speech as a prelude to stripping other people of their rights, it is right for there to be consequences. The social contract in fact demands at least some degree of consequences, otherwise the social contract is useless because it's purpose is fundamentally to protect rights. In a democracy, should people be allowed to vote for a dictator who promises to dissolve the government? That's a really rough philosophical question. I consent to a democracy, but I don't consent to a monarchy. It's the paradox of democracy and paradox of the idea of a government that exists primarily to protect rights.
    - teh_infallible 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - hayst4ck 2y ago
        Why do you think that is? What do you think the end goal and justification is for using coercive force against someone resisting vaccines or coercive force against polluting companies?
        userbinator 2y ago
        "The truth does not resist questioning."
        hayst4ck 2y ago
        Only between people acting in good faith.
  - userbinator 2y ago
    The last administration was far from perfect but I think they upheld their view of free speech quite well in terms of policy. The last administration: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230-will-hurt-internet-users-not-big-tech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230...
    - Arainach 2y ago
      That article doesn't mention the executive branch at any point.
  - Dracophoenix 2y ago
    > The left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. You may have it backwards, depending on one's definitions of "left" and "right". It was Berkley's Free Speech Movement, largely composed of leftist students and sympathizers, that kickstarted the "free as in anarchy" approach to speech in its modern incarnation. And anarchy is not even an exaggeration as many of its members occupied buildings, engaged in shut-ins and shut downs of privately owned businesses, as well as mounted police cars when one of their members were arrested. In many ways, this is the style of freedom the internet offered at its earliest and most fringe.
    - foul 2y ago
      It wouldn't be backwards, more like bipartisan. Furthermore, when assimilated by the Democratic party, the "free speech as in anarchy" idea got war dynamics (pragmatism in accepting persons and accepting the unacceptable) in the same way it has always been thought in the Republican side.
    - alwayslikethis 2y ago
      > And anarchy is not even an exaggeration as many of its members occupied buildings, engaged in shut-ins and shut downs of privately owned businesses, as well as mounted police cars when one of their members were arrested As far as I can tell, freedom of speech never extended to actions. "Free as in anarchy" is more like being able to shout insults, offensive, blasphemous, and politically incorrect, or deliberately misleading speech.
    - y0eswddl 2y ago
      [dead]
- diego_sandoval 2y ago
  The left usually tries to conceal their free speech violations under the excuses of "hate speech", and in specific cases in Europe, right to be forgotten. Trump has no shame just calls it "take it down".
  - some_furry 2y ago
    The left doesn't have a meaningful presence in American politics. Just say "Democrats" if that's what you mean.
    - aaomidi 2y ago
      Yep. There is no “left” here.
    - fuckbrownpeople 2y ago
      [dead]
  - userbinator 2y ago
    Also "think of the children" and "privacy".
explodes 2y ago
The "Take Action" link leads to "Bad Gateway"
- turbocon 2y ago
  It just worked for me so maybe it's a been fixed.
- righthand 2y ago
  404 not found for me.
Banditoz 2y ago
The article says it passed the Senate.. does it have a chance to pass the House?
- nativeit 2y ago
  Sure, it's a bipartisan bill. If Democrats wanted to stop it in the Senate, they could have. That said, the House is typically a more partisan and less predictable place. Shenanigans are always possible..but the US Congress has been largely irresponsible with privacy thus far, why expect anything different?
kibwen 2y ago
Taking bets on how soon until DOGE takes down this page: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/
- throwaway69123 2y ago
  what odds you offering you will get pretty good liquidity on people who think thats 100:1
- fasbiner 2y ago
  I'll take that action for up to high five figures using fiat or crypto and a third party site, reply with the amount you're interested in wagering. Or are you like the current executive in that you also don't mean the words you say and will always hide behind the excuse that everyone knows you're such a liar that it's unfair for anyone to take what you say literally?
LAC-Tech 2y ago
America is one of the last bastions of free speech left. Stuff like this, the tik tok ban, and the "anti-semitism" laws, are very disturbing developments.
- vkou 2y ago
  It's weird that the government of America has fully gotten into the business of tone and morality policing, and banning the press for calling the Gulf of Mexico what it is. That doesn't seem compatible with being a bastion of free anything.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    freedom TO vs freedom FROM. For example the left wants freedom from unfair business practices, while the right wants the freedom to do whatever they want in their businesses.
    - eddythompson80 2y ago
      That whole “freedom TO” vs “freedom FROM” is a meaningless word play. Every “freedom TO” can be reworded to a “freedom FROM” and vice verse. The only meaningful difference is to use “TO” and “FROM” to illustrate 2 abstract types of “freedoms”. The absence of external constraints and the ability to make choices. Two concepts that are very intertwined. Some times discrete, but most of the time intertwined. You can’t assign left or right to either one.
      - ranger_danger 2y ago
        As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.
        eddythompson80 2y ago
        regardless of how nice a sentence sounds, nonsense is still nonsense
thrance 2y ago
So called "free speech absolutists" the minute they get into power... An an European often arguing with Americans on whichever definition of free speech is best, that's what always bugged me. It doesn't matter what your law says when people who don't respect the law gain power. They won't protect their opponents free speech. Punishing hate speech does not lead to political censorship, authoritarianism does.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  > Punishing hate speech does not lead to political censorship Well, sure it does, if a political party runs on hate!
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Donald Trump has never been a free speech absolutist. He does like to stir people up about "free speech" though, particularly when it's something he wants to say, but that doesn't turn him into an absolutist. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledge...
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Musk was the one to claim to be an absolutist.
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      While there are plenty of opportunities to bring Elon into conversations about Trump, and I have no doubt he's flip flopped on that like everything else he talks about, this act isn't really something he's been involved in. The act was introduced in the Senate prior to Musk teaming up with Trump's campaign 9 months ago, Trump just happened to push the House to also pass it in his address to Congress last night.
  - thrance 2y ago
    His supporters and allies certainly like to claim they are, and that he is their champion.
rqtwteye 2y ago
It seems they really are taking inspiration from 1933 "Gleichschaltung". It looks like they want to control everything. Has any incoming administration ever made so many sweeping changes in such short time?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Nonsense, our founding fathers didn’t even view pornography as free speech; with the first domestically produced pornography dating to 1840. They also had no problem with slander laws, imported wholesale from Britain. Revenge porn would have blown their Protestant minds to the point of not writing the first amendment.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Hold up: Let's remember that when first made the US Constitution contained limits that only applied to what the new Federal Government could do. (The Articles of Confederation being a failed beta-test.) Before-vs-After the 14th amendment, a lot of comparisons automatically become apples-to-oranges. The people who crafted and ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 simply were not operating in a world where those rules had nearly as much interaction/overlap with the 13 different State-level constitutions.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      P.S.: Tangentially, this leads me to my "I get both sides angry at me" view about what the framers originally intended the Second Amendment to do. * For the less-gun folks: It creates zero rights to own a gun if you didn't already, since per-state laws took precedence. It merely prevented the federal government from indirectly disarming entire states in a sneaky way. In addition, the status-quo definition of "militias" [0] were forces commanded by state-appointed officers and supplied from state funds. * For the more-gun folks: Individual states were required to supply those militias with weapons that are significantly stronger than mere personal defense, such as small cannons ("field pieces") that could be towed by a horse. [1] I imagine the modern version would be a machine-gun on a pickup-truck. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation [1] https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/new-education-project-takes-aim-at-revolutionary-war-artillery/ https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/new-education-pr...
waltercool 2y ago
The issue and reason about this law is, what happens when some teenager post naked photos of some ex girlgriend at internet. While I don't care much about AI deepfakes, revenge porn can be very harmful to women, at the point of considering suicide. This needs to be normalized at some point. While I don't like what Germany usually does, privacy about private photos/videos need to be respected
wewewedxfgdf 2y ago
Very interesting times to live in.
IAmGraydon 2y ago
Like all draconian measures, they use the guise of a good cause to pass a law that they fully intend to abuse. This law was "intended" to put a stop to deepfakes and revenge porn, but we have the president openly admitting that he intends to use it for himself. From Trump last night: >I look forward to signing that bill into law. 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. Unless Trump is concerned about NCII involving his likeness (he's not), he's openly admitting what this law is actually for - to silence opposition.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  Or he didn't read the bill. The text is quite specific about what kinds of content it applies to, I don't think there's any way it could be used to silence opposition.
  - barbazoo 2y ago
    It’s another case where he didn’t know what’s going on, heard three words he knew and started babbling. And then people try to interpret it like tealeaves.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
A lot of people in the comments here who I would perhaps advise to click into the text of the bill. I respect the EFF's privacy concerns, but I don't agree that victims of revenge porn should have to wait for a service provider to carefully verify their claims before getting a takedown processed, although I do hope the House offers amendments to clarify that encrypted messaging apps don't need to institute surveillance to comply.
9283409232 2y ago
When you combine this with the upcoming death of Section 230, what you have is Elon, Trump and their network of liars being able to spread bullshit nonstop but then they will be able to target anyone who tries to hold them accountable.
9283409232 2y ago
I made a comment on this already but I do want to add that everyone should call their representatives. It does work and house reps are much more vulnerable than senators so you have more leverage with them.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
The recent example of someone putting political commentary on display at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shows a bit of how this plays out. (The fact that it was un-authorizedly pirated onto the displays at a federal building is a separate topic; I'm focusing here on the content). BlueSky took down all the videos of it playing around the office. Because it was AI generated. It wasn't clear whether it was (a video of) a real video or not. But if that video had been done by an artist? If it had been a comic? That would have been acceptable content to keep on the social network, most likely. There's a lot of cases where I do think computer generated imagery is personally harmful and dangerous and should have some checks. And I definitely fear it's use politically, if we see videos that credulously seem to be a politician doing something they wouldn't do, performing speech they didn't do. Yet, in this example, it feels like there was little risk that the video would be taken seriously. It felt like clear political satire. But this law proposes that we outlaw political satire, purely because computer generation tools helped make the satire. That seems... not good. This guy already claiming he's going to use it to take down videos of him feels like it will radically chill commentary & expression of thought that people have a right to make.
Animats 2y ago
Here's the current Senate bill.[1] (passed) Current House bill.[2] (introduced) Last year's Senate bill [3] (passed). This bill has been kicking around for a while, with bipartisan support. This passed the Senate last December, and the new bill seems to be a duplicate of the old. The take-down procedure mirrors the DMCA, but there is no corresponding put-back procedure. That's the real problem. With the DMCA, you can fight a take-down with a counter-notice. Then the copyright claimant has to go to court. There's nothing like that in this bill. A solution for social site operators: if Trump tries to abuse this: use a classifier to find images of all major administration officials and just blank them out. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146 [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/633 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/633 [3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4569 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/456...
sebazzz 2y ago
I curious. Nearly everything has been done through decretes until now. Why choose the difficult path by actually letting this go through the Senate and House?
- pas 2y ago
  because it has unfortunately bipartisan support https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43275858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43275858
93po 2y ago
It's disappointing that the EFF is getting into partisan politics instead of staying out of it. Trump sucks and I'm not defending him, but it's really tiresome when people quote him and infer meaning that he super obviously did not mean. His quote: > 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. to which the EFF writes: > Trump when he says he would use the Take It Down Act simply because he's "treated badly," It is such a massive stretch to interpret his words this way. Trump is clearly talking about fake/doctored/AI footage of himself. Trump is not going to try to use this bill to make people stop saying mean things about him on twitter. Can we please hold people accountable for the real, problematic, hateful things they do, instead of inventing stuff that isn't real? It really damages the credibility of a group when they do this. This is the "fine people on both sides" all over again - a quote where Trump literally said in the NEXT SENTENCE: "And I don't mean nazis and white supremacists", and everyone clipped out that part and hyperbolized to "trump literally said nazis are fine people" when it's the opposite of what he said

152 points by panarky 2y ago

userbinator 2y ago

Whichever the ruling party is, it seems to never be one that actually supports free speech.

seandoe 2y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Maybe because it _is_ how things work, not seemingly.
Spivak 2y ago
Depends on what you consider free speech to be I suppose. The left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. Neither is more correct than the other and we have plenty of examples of both in our laws. Rules of the road and FCC spectrum allocations being pretty easy examples of individual freedom being traded for collective freedom. The last administration was far from perfect but I think they upheld their view of free speech quite well in terms of policy. This administration is on a revenge tour right now and is taking a "free as in I can say whatever I want" power trip so I don't think we'll know how they do until they cool off.
- uhgfdrt 2y ago
  > left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. This is incredibly incorrect. > right prefers a "free as in anarchy" The right wing of USA politics claims this but clearly act in opposition to this claim. Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics.
  - eru 2y ago
    > Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics. Depends on what you mean by 'left' and 'anarchy'. See eg anarcho-capitalists as an example that most people would see as 'right' and that uses the term 'anarchy'. (I'm explicitly not saying that their use of 'anarchy' is the correct definition of the term, just pointing out that at least a substantial number of people use a definition of 'anarchy' that makes this concept possible for them.)
    - some_furry 2y ago
      Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism creates hierarchies. Anarchy is a rejection of hierarchies, because it creates rulers.
      - dartos 2y ago
        Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? How could you enforce communism under anarchy?
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? Communism implies anarchism. > How could you enforce communism under anarchy? Communism, as a state, is the hypothetical self-sustaining stateless end-state envisioned by Communism, the ideology. Socialism (an intermediate state in the theory), and State Capitalism (an intermediate state—and one most real regimes claiming Communist ideology get stuck in—in practice) may need enforcement, Communism, almost by definition, does not (whether it os attainable is, of course, a different question.)
        x-complexity 2y ago
        > > Potentially unrelated, but isn’t anarchy-communism also an oxymoron? > Communism implies anarchism. The economic system of communism in no way implies that it would be achieved via anarchic means; It only outlines that the participants in the system share resources towards achieving the common goals of everyone involved. How it should be done has been left as an unfortunate "left as an exercise to the reader". Anarchic forces may be one way of doing so, but it is in no way implied by communism.
- hayst4ck 2y ago
  I think it's more fair to say that liberals believe that the 1A protects speaking truth to power, while the conservative idea is more the 1A protects saying things people don't like. America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals, and within the countries founding document -- the declaration of independence, the liberal idea of "social contract" was encoded. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) Liberals are suspicious of speech that violates the social contract, such as speech that is a prelude to violating other people's, like transgender people's, pursuit of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If you use your right to speech as a prelude to stripping other people of their rights, it is right for there to be consequences. The social contract in fact demands at least some degree of consequences, otherwise the social contract is useless because it's purpose is fundamentally to protect rights. In a democracy, should people be allowed to vote for a dictator who promises to dissolve the government? That's a really rough philosophical question. I consent to a democracy, but I don't consent to a monarchy. It's the paradox of democracy and paradox of the idea of a government that exists primarily to protect rights.
  - teh_infallible 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      Why do you think that is? What do you think the end goal and justification is for using coercive force against someone resisting vaccines or coercive force against polluting companies?
      - userbinator 2y ago
        "The truth does not resist questioning."
        hayst4ck 2y ago
        Only between people acting in good faith.
- userbinator 2y ago
  The last administration was far from perfect but I think they upheld their view of free speech quite well in terms of policy. The last administration: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230-will-hurt-internet-users-not-big-tech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230...
  - Arainach 2y ago
    That article doesn't mention the executive branch at any point.
- Dracophoenix 2y ago
  > The left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. You may have it backwards, depending on one's definitions of "left" and "right". It was Berkley's Free Speech Movement, largely composed of leftist students and sympathizers, that kickstarted the "free as in anarchy" approach to speech in its modern incarnation. And anarchy is not even an exaggeration as many of its members occupied buildings, engaged in shut-ins and shut downs of privately owned businesses, as well as mounted police cars when one of their members were arrested. In many ways, this is the style of freedom the internet offered at its earliest and most fringe.
  - foul 2y ago
    It wouldn't be backwards, more like bipartisan. Furthermore, when assimilated by the Democratic party, the "free speech as in anarchy" idea got war dynamics (pragmatism in accepting persons and accepting the unacceptable) in the same way it has always been thought in the Republican side.
  - alwayslikethis 2y ago
    > And anarchy is not even an exaggeration as many of its members occupied buildings, engaged in shut-ins and shut downs of privately owned businesses, as well as mounted police cars when one of their members were arrested As far as I can tell, freedom of speech never extended to actions. "Free as in anarchy" is more like being able to shout insults, offensive, blasphemous, and politically incorrect, or deliberately misleading speech.
  - y0eswddl 2y ago
    [dead]
diego_sandoval 2y ago
The left usually tries to conceal their free speech violations under the excuses of "hate speech", and in specific cases in Europe, right to be forgotten. Trump has no shame just calls it "take it down".
- some_furry 2y ago
  The left doesn't have a meaningful presence in American politics. Just say "Democrats" if that's what you mean.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    Yep. There is no “left” here.
  - fuckbrownpeople 2y ago
    [dead]
- userbinator 2y ago
  Also "think of the children" and "privacy".

explodes 2y ago

The "Take Action" link leads to "Bad Gateway"

turbocon 2y ago
It just worked for me so maybe it's a been fixed.
righthand 2y ago
404 not found for me.

Banditoz 2y ago

The article says it passed the Senate.. does it have a chance to pass the House?

nativeit 2y ago
Sure, it's a bipartisan bill. If Democrats wanted to stop it in the Senate, they could have. That said, the House is typically a more partisan and less predictable place. Shenanigans are always possible..but the US Congress has been largely irresponsible with privacy thus far, why expect anything different?

kibwen 2y ago

Taking bets on how soon until DOGE takes down this page: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

throwaway69123 2y ago
what odds you offering you will get pretty good liquidity on people who think thats 100:1
fasbiner 2y ago
I'll take that action for up to high five figures using fiat or crypto and a third party site, reply with the amount you're interested in wagering. Or are you like the current executive in that you also don't mean the words you say and will always hide behind the excuse that everyone knows you're such a liar that it's unfair for anyone to take what you say literally?

LAC-Tech 2y ago

America is one of the last bastions of free speech left. Stuff like this, the tik tok ban, and the "anti-semitism" laws, are very disturbing developments.

vkou 2y ago
It's weird that the government of America has fully gotten into the business of tone and morality policing, and banning the press for calling the Gulf of Mexico what it is. That doesn't seem compatible with being a bastion of free anything.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  freedom TO vs freedom FROM. For example the left wants freedom from unfair business practices, while the right wants the freedom to do whatever they want in their businesses.
  - eddythompson80 2y ago
    That whole “freedom TO” vs “freedom FROM” is a meaningless word play. Every “freedom TO” can be reworded to a “freedom FROM” and vice verse. The only meaningful difference is to use “TO” and “FROM” to illustrate 2 abstract types of “freedoms”. The absence of external constraints and the ability to make choices. Two concepts that are very intertwined. Some times discrete, but most of the time intertwined. You can’t assign left or right to either one.
    - ranger_danger 2y ago
      As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding.
      - eddythompson80 2y ago
        regardless of how nice a sentence sounds, nonsense is still nonsense

thrance 2y ago

So called "free speech absolutists" the minute they get into power... An an European often arguing with Americans on whichever definition of free speech is best, that's what always bugged me. It doesn't matter what your law says when people who don't respect the law gain power. They won't protect their opponents free speech. Punishing hate speech does not lead to political censorship, authoritarianism does.

idle_zealot 2y ago
> Punishing hate speech does not lead to political censorship Well, sure it does, if a political party runs on hate!
zamadatix 2y ago
Donald Trump has never been a free speech absolutist. He does like to stir people up about "free speech" though, particularly when it's something he wants to say, but that doesn't turn him into an absolutist. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledge...
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Musk was the one to claim to be an absolutist.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    While there are plenty of opportunities to bring Elon into conversations about Trump, and I have no doubt he's flip flopped on that like everything else he talks about, this act isn't really something he's been involved in. The act was introduced in the Senate prior to Musk teaming up with Trump's campaign 9 months ago, Trump just happened to push the House to also pass it in his address to Congress last night.
- thrance 2y ago
  His supporters and allies certainly like to claim they are, and that he is their champion.

rqtwteye 2y ago

It seems they really are taking inspiration from 1933 "Gleichschaltung". It looks like they want to control everything. Has any incoming administration ever made so many sweeping changes in such short time?

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Nonsense, our founding fathers didn’t even view pornography as free speech; with the first domestically produced pornography dating to 1840. They also had no problem with slander laws, imported wholesale from Britain. Revenge porn would have blown their Protestant minds to the point of not writing the first amendment.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Hold up: Let's remember that when first made the US Constitution contained limits that only applied to what the new Federal Government could do. (The Articles of Confederation being a failed beta-test.) Before-vs-After the 14th amendment, a lot of comparisons automatically become apples-to-oranges. The people who crafted and ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 simply were not operating in a world where those rules had nearly as much interaction/overlap with the 13 different State-level constitutions.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    P.S.: Tangentially, this leads me to my "I get both sides angry at me" view about what the framers originally intended the Second Amendment to do. * For the less-gun folks: It creates zero rights to own a gun if you didn't already, since per-state laws took precedence. It merely prevented the federal government from indirectly disarming entire states in a sneaky way. In addition, the status-quo definition of "militias" [0] were forces commanded by state-appointed officers and supplied from state funds. * For the more-gun folks: Individual states were required to supply those militias with weapons that are significantly stronger than mere personal defense, such as small cannons ("field pieces") that could be towed by a horse. [1] I imagine the modern version would be a machine-gun on a pickup-truck. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation [1] https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/new-education-project-takes-aim-at-revolutionary-war-artillery/ https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/new-education-pr...

waltercool 2y ago

The issue and reason about this law is, what happens when some teenager post naked photos of some ex girlgriend at internet. While I don't care much about AI deepfakes, revenge porn can be very harmful to women, at the point of considering suicide. This needs to be normalized at some point. While I don't like what Germany usually does, privacy about private photos/videos need to be respected

wewewedxfgdf 2y ago

Very interesting times to live in.

IAmGraydon 2y ago

Like all draconian measures, they use the guise of a good cause to pass a law that they fully intend to abuse. This law was "intended" to put a stop to deepfakes and revenge porn, but we have the president openly admitting that he intends to use it for himself. From Trump last night: >I look forward to signing that bill into law. 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. Unless Trump is concerned about NCII involving his likeness (he's not), he's openly admitting what this law is actually for - to silence opposition.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
Or he didn't read the bill. The text is quite specific about what kinds of content it applies to, I don't think there's any way it could be used to silence opposition.
- barbazoo 2y ago
  It’s another case where he didn’t know what’s going on, heard three words he knew and started babbling. And then people try to interpret it like tealeaves.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

A lot of people in the comments here who I would perhaps advise to click into the text of the bill. I respect the EFF's privacy concerns, but I don't agree that victims of revenge porn should have to wait for a service provider to carefully verify their claims before getting a takedown processed, although I do hope the House offers amendments to clarify that encrypted messaging apps don't need to institute surveillance to comply.

9283409232 2y ago

When you combine this with the upcoming death of Section 230, what you have is Elon, Trump and their network of liars being able to spread bullshit nonstop but then they will be able to target anyone who tries to hold them accountable.

9283409232 2y ago

I made a comment on this already but I do want to add that everyone should call their representatives. It does work and house reps are much more vulnerable than senators so you have more leverage with them.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

The recent example of someone putting political commentary on display at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shows a bit of how this plays out. (The fact that it was un-authorizedly pirated onto the displays at a federal building is a separate topic; I'm focusing here on the content). BlueSky took down all the videos of it playing around the office. Because it was AI generated. It wasn't clear whether it was (a video of) a real video or not. But if that video had been done by an artist? If it had been a comic? That would have been acceptable content to keep on the social network, most likely. There's a lot of cases where I do think computer generated imagery is personally harmful and dangerous and should have some checks. And I definitely fear it's use politically, if we see videos that credulously seem to be a politician doing something they wouldn't do, performing speech they didn't do. Yet, in this example, it feels like there was little risk that the video would be taken seriously. It felt like clear political satire. But this law proposes that we outlaw political satire, purely because computer generation tools helped make the satire. That seems... not good. This guy already claiming he's going to use it to take down videos of him feels like it will radically chill commentary & expression of thought that people have a right to make.

Animats 2y ago

Here's the current Senate bill.[1] (passed) Current House bill.[2] (introduced) Last year's Senate bill [3] (passed). This bill has been kicking around for a while, with bipartisan support. This passed the Senate last December, and the new bill seems to be a duplicate of the old. The take-down procedure mirrors the DMCA, but there is no corresponding put-back procedure. That's the real problem. With the DMCA, you can fight a take-down with a counter-notice. Then the copyright claimant has to go to court. There's nothing like that in this bill. A solution for social site operators: if Trump tries to abuse this: use a classifier to find images of all major administration officials and just blank them out. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146 [2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/633 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/633 [3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4569 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/456...

sebazzz 2y ago

I curious. Nearly everything has been done through decretes until now. Why choose the difficult path by actually letting this go through the Senate and House?

pas 2y ago
because it has unfortunately bipartisan support https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43275858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43275858

93po 2y ago

It's disappointing that the EFF is getting into partisan politics instead of staying out of it. Trump sucks and I'm not defending him, but it's really tiresome when people quote him and infer meaning that he super obviously did not mean. His quote: > 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. to which the EFF writes: > Trump when he says he would use the Take It Down Act simply because he's "treated badly," It is such a massive stretch to interpret his words this way. Trump is clearly talking about fake/doctored/AI footage of himself. Trump is not going to try to use this bill to make people stop saying mean things about him on twitter. Can we please hold people accountable for the real, problematic, hateful things they do, instead of inventing stuff that isn't real? It really damages the credibility of a group when they do this. This is the "fine people on both sides" all over again - a quote where Trump literally said in the NEXT SENTENCE: "And I don't mean nazis and white supremacists", and everyone clipped out that part and hyperbolized to "trump literally said nazis are fine people" when it's the opposite of what he said