Trump Calls On Congress To Pass The “Take It Down” Act—So He Can Censor His Critics
www.eff.org
We've opposed the Take It Down Act because it could be easily manipulated to take down lawful content that powerful people simply don't like. Last night, President Trump demonstrated he has a similar view on the bill. He wants to sign the bill into law, then use it to remove content about — him....

We’ve opposed the Take It Down Act because it could be easily manipulated to take down lawful content that powerful people simply don’t like. Last night, President Trump demonstrated he has a similar view on the bill. He wants to sign the bill into law, then use it to remove content about — him. And he won’t be the only powerful person to do so.

  • Nay@feddit.nlEnglish
    96·
    21 hours ago

    I read the bill and it didn’t have anything to do with silencing critics. It was focused on “Intimate imagery” both real and AI. Am I missing something?

    • proper@lemmy.world
      30·
      21 hours ago

      Here’s what Trump said to a joint session of Congress:

      “The Senate just passed the Take It Down Act… Once it passes the House, 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.”

      • Nay@feddit.nlEnglish
        111·
        20 hours ago

        Yeah… With trump the black and white letter of the law doesn’t matter… I think I’m just being naive. 😭

    • Darkassassin07@lemmy.caEnglish
      25·
      20 hours ago

      From the linked article:

      The Take It Down Act is an overbroad, poorly drafted bill that would create a powerful system to pressure removal of internet posts, with essentially no safeguards. While the bill is meant to address a serious problem—the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)—the notice-and-takedown system it creates is an open invitation for powerful people to pressure websites into removing content they dislike. There are no penalties for applying very broad, or even farcical definitions of what constitutes NCII, and then demanding that it be removed.

      It would mean Trump and anyone else could demand the removal of pretty much any image that features them; with legal penalties for not immediately complying.

      Think DMCA takedowns for youtube videos, but against every image on every platform available in the US. The platform has to comply, remove the flagged content, and let the courts sort out whether it should go back up.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        14·
        19 hours ago

        If the definition is broad enough, imagery can refer to text depicting something visual. For example, describing Trump talking into a microphone can be imagery. The previous sentence could also be imagery, and if you just imagined him talking into a microphone, you proved it.

        That would make it incredibly easy to silence media and criticism. An article describes Trump signing an executive order to make Nazis a protected demographic? The author published intimate imagery of Trump signing his signature without first checking with Trump that it was ok to do so. BANNED.