Sign up for the Slatest to get probably the most insightful evaluation, criticism, and recommendation on the market, delivered to your inbox every day.
Had you scanned any of the most recent headlines across the TAKE IT DOWN Act, laws that President Donald Trump signed into legislation Monday, you’ll have come away with a deeply mistaken impression of the invoice and its true objective.
The surface-level pitch is that this can be a vital legislation for addressing nonconsensual intimate photographs—identified extra extensively as revenge porn. Obfuscating its intent with a classic congressional acronym (Instruments to Tackle Identified Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Web sites and Networks), the TAKE IT DOWN Act purports to assist scrub the web of exploitative, nonconsensual sexual media, whether or not actual or digitally mocked up, at a time when synthetic intelligence instruments and automatic picture mills have supercharged its unfold. Enforcement is delegated to the Federal Commerce Fee, which can give on-line communities that specialize primarily in user-generated content material (e.g., social media, message boards) a heads-up and a 48-hour takedown deadline every time an applicable instance is reported. These platforms have additionally been directed to arrange on-site reporting techniques by Could 2026. Penalties for violations embrace jail sentences of two to three years and steep financial fines.
Public reception has been rapturous. CNN is gushing that “victims of specific deepfakes will now be capable of take authorized motion towards individuals who create them.” A number of native Fox associates are taking the federal government at its phrase that TAKE IT DOWN is designed to target revenge porn. Different shops, just like the BBC and USA At this time, led off by noting first girl Melania Trump’s appearance on the invoice signing.
But these headlines and items ignore TAKE IT DOWN’s severe potential for abuse. (Jezebel and Wired have been maybe the one publications to level out in each a headline and subhead that the legislation merely “claims to offer victims greater protections” and that “free speech advocates warn it could be weaponized to fuel censorship.”) Rarer nonetheless, apart from sites like the Verge, has there been any acknowledgment of Trump’s personal said motivation for passing the act, as he’d underlined in a joint handle to Congress in March: “I’m going to make use of that invoice for myself too, should you don’t thoughts, as a result of no one will get handled worse than I do on-line, no one.”
Certain, it’s typical for this president to make such severe issues about himself. However Trump’s blathering about having it “worse” than revenge-porn survivors, and his quip about “utilizing that invoice for myself,” isn’t a fluke. For some time now, activists who focus on free speech, digital privateness, and even stopping little one sexual abuse have tried to warn that the invoice is not going to do what it purports to do.
Late final month, after TAKE IT DOWN had handed each the Home and Senate, the Digital Frontier Basis wrote that the invoice’s legislative mechanism “lacks critical safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests.” For one, the 48-hour takedown deadline signifies that digital platforms (particularly smaller, less-resourced web sites) shall be compelled to make use of automated filters that usually flag authorized content material—as a result of there gained’t be “sufficient time to confirm whether or not the speech is definitely unlawful.” The EFF additionally warns that TAKE IT DOWN requires monitoring that might attain into even encrypted messages between customers. If this laws has the impact of granting legislation enforcement a method of bypassing encrypted communications, we might as nicely bid farewell to the very concept of digital privacy.
A February letter addressed to the Senate from a variety of free-expression nonprofits—together with Battle for the Future and the Authors Guild—additionally raised considerations over TAKE IT DOWN’s implications for content material moderation and encryption. The teams famous that though the invoice makes allowances for authorized porn and newsworthy content material, “these exceptions will not be included within the invoice’s takedown system.” They added that personal instruments like direct messages and cloud storage aren’t protected both, which may depart them open to invasive monitoring with little justification. The Heart for Democracy and Know-how, a signatory to the letter, later famous in a follow-up assertion that the powers granted to the FTC in implementing such a obscure legislation may result in politically motivated assaults, undermining progress in tackling precise nonconsensual imagery.
Techdirt’s Mike Masnick wrote last month that TAKE IT DOWN is “so badly designed that the individuals it’s meant to assist oppose it,” pointing to public statements from the advocacy group Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, “whose whole existence is predicated on representing the pursuits of victims” of nonconsensual intimate imagery. CCRI has lengthy criticized the invoice’s takedown provisions and in the end concluded that the nonprofit “can not assist laws that dangers endangering the very communities it’s devoted to defending, together with LGBTQIA+ people, individuals of coloration, and different weak teams.” (In a separate statement, the CCRI highlighted different oddities inside the invoice, like a loophole permitting for nonconsensual sexual media to be posted if the uploader occurs to seem within the picture, and the specific inclusion of boards specializing in “audio recordsdata,” regardless of in any other case specializing in visible supplies.)
“The considerations will not be theoretical,” Masnick continued. “The invoice’s obscure requirements mixed with harsh legal penalties create an ideal storm for censorship and abuse.”
Let’s be clear: Nobody right here is in any respect against sound laws that tackles the inescapable, simple drawback of nonconsensual sexual materials. All 50 states, together with the District of Columbia, have enacted legal guidelines criminalizing exploitative sexual pictures and movies to various levels. TAKE IT DOWN extends such protection to deepfake revenge porn, a change that makes the invoice a vital complement to those state legal guidelines—however its textual content is shockingly slim on the digital entrance, criminalizing solely A.I. imagery that’s deemed to be “indistinguishable from an genuine visible depiction.” This simply results in extra obscure language that hardly addresses the underlying challenge.
The CCRI has spent a full decade combating for legal guidelines to deal with the disaster of nonconsensual sexual imagery, even drafting mannequin laws—elements of which did make it into TAKE IT DOWN. On Bluesky, CCRI President Mary Anne Franks known as this reality “bittersweet,” proclaiming that the long-overdue criminalization of exploitative sexual imagery is undermined by the ultimate legislation’s “lack of sufficient safeguards towards false stories.” A number of House Democrats appeared to the group’s proposed fixes and attempted to pass amendments that may have added such safeguards, solely to be obstructed by their Republican colleagues.
This could fear everybody. These teams made concerted efforts to tell Congress of the problems with TAKE IT DOWN and to suggest options, solely to be all however ignored. As Masnick wrote in another Techdirt post, the US already has sufficient of an issue with the notorious Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the one different American legislation with a notice-and-takedown measure like TAKE IT DOWN’s, albeit designed to stop the unauthorized unfold of copyright works. Simply ask any creatives or platform operators who’ve needed to take care of abusive flurries of bad-faith DMCA takedown requests—although the legislation features a clause meant to guard towards such weaponization. There’s no cause to imagine that TAKE IT DOWN gained’t be equally exploited to go after intercourse employees and LGBTQ+ customers, in addition to anybody who posts a picture or animation that one other person merely doesn’t like and decides to report. It’s not dissimilar to different items of proposed laws, just like the Kids Online Safety Act, that purport to guard younger netizens through wishy-washy phrases that might criminalize all kinds of free expression.
Right here’s a hypothetical: A satirical cartoonist comes up with an illustration of Trump as a baby and publishes it on a distinct segment social media platform that they use to showcase their artwork. A Trump supporter finds this cartoon and decides to report it as abusive pornography, resulting in a takedown discover on the cartoonist’s web site. The artist and the platform don’t comply, and a pissed-off Trump brings the total power of the legislation towards this creator. The method of discovery leads prosecutors to interrupt into the artist’s encrypted communications, revealing drafts of the drawing that the cartoonist had shared with pals. All of this will get the illustrator punished with a short jail sentence and steep high-quality, totally sabotaging their checking account and profession; the social media platform they used is left bankrupt and shutters. The artists are compelled emigrate to a different website, whose directors see what occurred to their former dwelling and determine to censor political works. All of the whereas, an underage person finds that their likeness has been used to generate a sexually specific deepfake that has been unfold throughout Discord—but their case is discovered to haven’t any advantage as a result of the deepfake in query isn’t thought-about “indistinguishable from an genuine visible depiction,” regardless of all of the Discord-based abusers recognizing precisely whom that deepfake is supposed to symbolize.
It’s a hypothetical—however not an unimaginable one. It’s a hazard that too few Individuals perceive, because of congressional ignorance and the media’s credulous reporting on TAKE IT DOWN. The result’s a legislation that’s supposedly meant to guard the weak however finally ends up shielding the highly effective—and punishing the very individuals it promised to assist.
Join Slate’s night e-newsletter.
