5 ms·
Take It Down Act: A Flawed Attempt to Protect Victims That'll Lead to Censorship
- Terr_ 2y agoEverything you love about the DMCA, in a brand new flavor and easier to abuse against free speech. There's no penalty for crazy/spam requests, but you're destroyed if you ever miss one.
- otterley 2y ago[flagged]
- krapp 2y agoWhy should the EFF be primarily influenced by public opinion? The public is often ignorant or apathetic about electronic surveillance and privacy invasion, or else they welcome the panopticon with open arms because corporate and propaganda have successfully manufactured their consent. And as the article states, laws already exist to address the issue. To simply assume this law would be interpreted or executed in good faith, especially given the current American political climate, seems naive.
- jordanb 2y agoThe point of this article is there are insufficient safeguards against fraudulent take-down notices. There isn't even the theoretical safeguard that the DMCA has. There is no downside to the person making a frivolous claim, and there is a very aggressive deadline for compliance, meaning that sites will just go ahead and insta-delete anything anyone files a complaint against.
- mattmaroon 2y agoDid you even read the article? They're not claiming there is actually anything wrong with requiring operators to take down NCII. In fact they say 48 states already have laws to do this. Their issue is that with a 48 hour window and pretty loose definitions of what must be taken down, it's going to lead to smaller companies just taking down anything at all that someone files that claim for. Even bigger companies might just err on the side of caution and take down anything flagged, the way they once did with DMCA notices. That system was abused for quite some time. Consensual adult porn, for instance, is legal here and protected by the First Amendment. What if your porn company's rival just files that notice on you? Can Pornhub adjudicate every dispute in 48 hours? What happens with a claim made against any communication that is end-to-end encrypted and thus unviewable by the operator? Etc. "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. "
- croes 2y agoMaybe you should read what Trump said on how he will use the Act https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43290002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43290002
- Hizonner 2y ago> What happened to EFF in the past few years? Seems like they're increasingly taking stances that are on the wrong side of public opinion. What's happened to the public in the past few years? Seems like they're increasingly easily fooled into supporting dumb knee-jerk responses that will have obvious, extremely destructive (hopefully) unintended consequences.
- thephyber 2y agoI usually don’t get outraged at bills that are not laws yet, but… The Congress webpage says it has already passed the Senate and has 20 cosponsors, roughly even from each party.
- Cornbilly 2y agoIt passed in the last Senate with a voice vote, which means it had overwhelming support. Thankfully, it being in the previous Senate means that the bill has to start over. Hopefully, the increased scrutiny will lead to amendments or killing the bill. With Trump essentially admitting that he intends to abuse it, I have a bad feeling that it’ll pass with a party line vote.
- mattmaroon 2y agoHe admitted that he intends to abuse this bill? Got a link? I missed that one.
- Cornbilly 2y agohttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/trump-calls-congress-pass-overbroad-take-it-down-act-so-he-can-use-it-censor https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/trump-calls-congress-p...
- mattmaroon 2y agoOh I see so we’re just interpreting what he says ridiculously again. I figured after this many years we would be past that.
- Cornbilly 2y agoAnd, apparently, we’re still doing the deliberately obtuse act. Nothing ever changes.
- 7e 2y agoI’ve heard this argument and seen the pearl clutching about every Internet bill that has ever been considered. They whip Internet activists into a frenzy. None of it has borne out once the bills have become law. It’s Chicken Little every time.
- blackqueeriroh 2y agoYou’re absolutely incorrect. Would you like to know the impacts of the previous bills that passed? You probably wouldn’t know.
- 7e 2y agoThe CDA, COPPA, DMCA, GDPR and copyright directives were all predicted (hysterically) to destroy the Internet. Oops, it still exists.
- hiddencost 2y agoQuestionable.
- 7e 2y agoLow effort responses are disregardable.
- Seattle3503 2y agoThose laws have re-shaped the entire internet.
- 7e 2y agoLaws are designed to have an effect, that is their purpose. However, the changes did not live up to the hysteria. Most of the doomsday predictions were so embarrassing in retrospect that the original articles have since been taken down.
- loeg 2y ago
- readyplayernull 2y agoRelated warning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43290002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43290002
- mattmaroon 2y ago[flagged]
- wetpaws 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ingohelpinger 2y agothey will keep pushing until encryption has been made illegal.
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoRelated: The Take It Down Act isn't a law, it's a weapon https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43293573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43293573
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]