Comment by somenameforme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by somenameforme | Hacker News Reader

I'd never heard of this act [1], and the article frames it in a way that is not especially informative, though they have an excellent page on it here. [2] The law is being passed with complete unanimity in all houses (409-2 in the House, unanimous in the Senate), which is a rarity in modern times. Quoting the EFF as well as why they are opposed to it:

- "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."

So sexual or intimate themed memes which use realistic looking imagery may end up being able to be taken down. I also find myself disagreeing with the EFF here in spite of generally being a tremendous supporter of their work. In particular their main argument is that there are existing laws which work for this issue, without introducing new potentially abusable legislation:

- "If a deepfake is used for criminal purposes, then criminal laws will apply. If a deepfake is used to pressure someone to pay money to have it suppressed or destroyed, extortion laws would apply. For any situations in which deepfakes were used to harass, harassment laws apply. There is no need to make new, specific laws about deepfakes in either of these situations."

But I think on this issue one should not need to suffer some form of measurable loss or suffering to want intimate/sexual images removed from a site, let alone then having to go through the legal system and file a lawsuit to achieve such.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAKE_IT_DOWN_Act

[2] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/04/congress-passes-take-i...

Yeah, aren't US harassment laws really weak? It seems like if you could successfully sue over online harassment people would have already done it.

Recent Supreme Court case makes it a free for all to harass with thousands of messages, you only have to say you were not serious and claim it was free speech. https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/27/us-supreme-court-opinion-colo...

Unless you have the ability to get the Supreme Court to hear your personal case, that doesn't apply at the state level. You'd still be subject to whatever your state decides is the law.

It's called a higher court for a reason.

Well if recent experience has taught us anything, one can start to dox people and their families to influence their decisions in work and personal life like we have seen judges and prosecutors being treated, then bad actors can rely on this digital stochastic terrorism of the masses to intimidate. This article actually says states will have to adjust their laws to account for proving intent, in addition to the digital trail of evidence, so essentially someone has to admit to it, much like law enforcement in the USA cannot be compelled to present evidence of racial discrimination and is at the same time not required to keep stats on it, but the defense must prove racial discrimination in any case, so that as long as no one in law enforcement admits to it, it's a catch 22 where it cannot be proven. These are distinctions without difference from endorsing the behavior.

Why is the second sentence of this article about Trump, when the bill is bipartisan and unanimous? A disproportionate share of the country's low-trust, anti-government types are Trump supporters. It's contrary to EFF's primary mission for it to shred their credibility with Trump voters by becoming a generic anti-Trump outfit.

Is it not relevant that Trump said he would use it to censor his critics? For being “anti-government types” it sure seems like they voted for dramatic and unprecedented authoritarian uses of the government.

The question isn’t whether it’s “relevant,” but whether that framing is the best approach for advancing EFF’s primary mission. I’d argue EFF’s primary mission is best served by avoiding provoking needless partisan fights on an issue where the EFF is going up against both parties.

> For being “anti-government types” it sure seems like they voted for dramatic and unprecedented authoritarian uses of the government.

I came across an excellent article on this, but I can’t find it. Basically, authoritarian populism is a response to the rise of the professional managerial class, and the ideological divergence of that class from the rest of the citizenry.

Most of the rules that affect your daily life don’t come from the President, or even high level cabinet officials, but career government officials and managers, as well as government-adjacent institutions such as universities and certain NGOs (the latter of which set rules through impact litigation). How can voters change how this distributed managerial class governs the country? They can elect someone like Trump, who is authoritarian, but whose authoritarianism is directed chiefly at the government itself and adjacent institutions.

It doesn’t behoove the EFF’s primary mission to alienate the large number of Trump voters who chafe at professional managerial control. Its primary mission is advanced by appealing both to the people who oppose policing porn on the internet, and also people who oppose policing so-called “hate speech” on the internet.

To make a comparison, look at Cato. Traditionally they’ve been more aligned with conservatives. But they have stuck to their guns on open borders and free trade, even though that’s made them hated by much of the more populist modern right.

I agree. I generally support the EFF, but I disagree with them on this. I read through the bill and the language is very specific to revenge porn (although I’m not a lawyer). I think it would be very difficult for Trump or anyone else to abuse this law and use it for censorship.

I have friends who were the victim of revenge porn and I think this law would help them. I’m looking forward to this becoming a law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com