Congress passes Take It Down act despite major flaws

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall Reaction and Political Context

  • Many see the Act as depressing, overbroad, and a sign of a “rough ride” ahead for online speech.
  • The near-unanimous, bipartisan passage (409–2 in the House, unanimous in the Senate) alarms commenters who note how rare such consensus is.
  • Some argue the EFF’s Trump-focused framing is politically unwise and risks alienating potential allies, even if his stated intent to use the law against critics is relevant.

Scope of the Law and Platform Obligations

  • One camp reads the text and sees a narrowly scoped “revenge porn/deepfake porn” bill, with specific definitions, complaint-driven processes, and liability limits for platforms.
  • Others argue “covered platforms” effectively means almost any image‑hosting UGC site, not a narrow class.
  • The law’s exception allowing law enforcement/intelligence to create deepfakes of minors raises particular unease.

Takedown Mechanics, Safe Harbor, and Abuse Potential

  • Critics emphasize:
    • No DMCA-style counter‑notice or appeal.
    • Platforms gain safe harbor only by taking content down; they are still exposed if they leave it up incorrectly.
    • FTC enforcement for “false negatives” pushes platforms to remove first, ask questions later.
    • Requirements for a complaint are seen as trivial to automate; nothing in the text penalizes fraudulent reports.
  • Proponents counter that:
    • The law is confined to “intimate visual depictions” (mostly pornographic content).
    • Platforms already have moderation systems for such content; automated removal is easy.
    • Civil suits against false claimants are theoretically available, though others call this naive and practically meaningless.
  • Multiple commenters draw analogies to DMCA and FOSTA/SESTA: incentives favor instant removal, overcompliance, and collateral censorship.

Free Speech, Deepfakes, and Existing Law

  • Some argue deepfakes are expressive works like caricatures and thus protected; existing laws on fraud, extortion, harassment, and defamation should suffice.
  • Others respond that US harassment law is weak, recent Supreme Court doctrine raises the bar for prosecution, and victims shouldn’t have to demonstrate measurable loss or litigate just to remove intimate images.
  • Debate extends into First Amendment doctrine (fair use, DMCA 1201, “code is speech”) and whether overbroad censorship laws ever realistically get struck down.

Broader Concerns and Future Trajectory

  • Several see the Act as part of a larger trend: expanding state and corporate control over online expression under the banner of “protecting victims” or “protecting children.”
  • Some foresee pressure on end‑to‑end encryption if courts decide E2EE impedes compliance.
  • Others predict more migration to Tor, IPFS, and federated systems—followed by attempts to criminalize or constrain those as well.