this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
176 points (98.4% liked)

politics

20722 readers
3452 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nay@feddit.nl 3 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

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 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.nl 10 points 19 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.ca 24 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

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 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 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.

[–] Nay@feddit.nl 4 points 18 hours ago

Yeah... I think I'm just being naive.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 15 points 20 hours ago

Idk maybe he wants to take down the great AI images of him licking FElons toes.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

...

You really saying Republicans wouldn't abuse it?

[–] Nay@feddit.nl 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 18 hours ago

I'd ask what that's supposed to be mean, but I don't think there's a satisfactory answer.

So have a nice life bud.