Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
A bill to address AI "deepfake" nudes, revenge porn and other sexually abusive imagery online looks increasingly likely to become the year's first big new internet law.
The Take It Down Act would make it a crime to post nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) and require online platforms to quickly remove it when flagged.
It's the rare bill that enjoys truly bipartisan support.
The Senate's version, co-written by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), passed unanimously in February. And its chances in the House got a big boost in March when first lady Melania Trump championed it.
On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce committee will mark up the bill along with 25 others - a busy schedule that suggests committee leaders do not expect to spend much time debating or considering amendments.
Many advocates are thrilled to see Congress taking action on a growing problem that is upending the lives of women and teens.
Today, those victimized by either authentic or AI-generated sexual images often struggle to get platforms to remove them.
"We've worked with survivors who've spent months in a really hellish loop with tech companies, where they're having to report their own content, even having to re-witness their own sexual assault in order to report it," said Haley McNamara, a senior vice president at the nonprofit National Center on Sexual Exploitation, formerly Morality in Media. The process can take weeks, and even then the images can resurface.
But digital rights groups are crying "not so fast."
While the bill's aims are worthy, it's poorly written in ways that could lead to big problems, said Becca Branum, deputy director of the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology's free expression project.
"In their eagerness to be responsive to the issue, it's my view that legislators haven't really kicked the tires on the Take It Down Act," Branum said.
They say the takedown provision lends itself to abuse.
The bill would require online platforms to remove NCII within 48 hours after it's reported, forcing them to move quickly. A "failure to reasonably comply" would open the company to penalties from the Federal Trade Commission.
But the bill establishes no penalties for making false reports, meaning bad-faith actors could flag just about anything as NCII to get it scrubbed from the internet, critics say. Nor does it penalize platforms for taking down First Amendment-protected speech or create a mechanism for appeal by the people whose content was removed.
Some also worry President Donald Trump could use the bill to his own ends.
While the FTC has historically enjoyed independence from the White House, Trump has moved to take control of the agency. The Verge's Adi Robertson argued in March that the Take It Down Act would give him another stick with which to threaten his critics while sparing political allies.
Trump didn't exactly quell such fears when he touted the Take It Down Act in his March address to Congress.
"I'm going to use that bill for myself, too, if you don't mind," he said, smiling. "Because nobody gets treated worse than I do online."
Privacy advocates say the bill also threatens a key element of internet security: encryption.
While the act exempts providers of email and broadband internet from its takedown requirements, it doesn't exempt private messaging or storage providers. On Friday, a coalition of nonprofits and cybersecurity experts led by the Internet Society wrote a letter to the committee's leaders calling for an amendment to address that.
The bill's critics say its problems are fixable. But lawmakers are wary of slowing its progress.
In theory, disputes over a bill's specifics can be hashed out in markup sessions like the one scheduled for Tuesday. But with so many items on the agenda and so much momentum to pass the Take It Down Act, it remains to be seen whether any lawmakers will propose amendments - and if so, whether they can persuade others to support them.
There "seems to be some fear" among lawmakers about being the first to "stick their neck out" on an otherwise popular bill, said Matthew Lane, senior policy counsel at the nonprofit Fight for the Future. "I hope that vibe doesn't carry the day."
A spokesperson for the committee's Republican majority declined to comment. A spokesperson for the committee's Democratic minority did not respond to a request for comment.
(COMMENT, BELOW)