I'm no legal expert, but isn't posting porn of someone without their consent already covered somewhere in United States Code? Porn sites did quite the purge a few years ago. So I'm wondering what this solves, even if it were worded better.
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
80 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
38322 readers
441 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Aside from the lack of protection against bad faith, I'm for the act.
Agreed. However, it also appears to apply too broadly:
The letter explains that the bill’s “takedown” provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content at all—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The bill contains no protections against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored.
Can't forget how the rich get legal representation while the poors do not. There is no justice in this country until legal counsel is affordable and accessible to everyone.
Cool, now I can report all that religious shit that appears.
What is the implication for Lemmy and other federated platforms? Is running a Lemmy instance going to now come with a huge legal risk and moderation requirements that three people with day jobs can't handle?
I'd imagine this will speed up defederation in some cases, but I've not run into any such material here.
I wouldn't think it wouldn't be any more of a legal requirement than making sure you keep CSAM off your servers as with current laws, just now with deep fakes too.
It's somewhat more comparable to DMCA takedowns I think.
I guess it's still gotta go through congress? Call your rep. Adding it to my list of shit to call about.