There's no penalty for crazy/spam requests, but you're destroyed if you ever miss one.
Thankfully, it being in the previous Senate means that the bill has to start over. Hopefully, the increased scrutiny will lead to amendments or killing the bill.
With Trump essentially admitting that he intends to abuse it, I have a bad feeling that it’ll pass with a party line vote.
There is no downside to the person making a frivolous claim, and there is a very aggressive deadline for compliance, meaning that sites will just go ahead and insta-delete anything anyone files a complaint against.
What's happened to the public in the past few years? Seems like they're increasingly easily fooled into supporting dumb knee-jerk responses that will have obvious, extremely destructive (hopefully) unintended consequences.
Their issue is that with a 48 hour window and pretty loose definitions of what must be taken down, it's going to lead to smaller companies just taking down anything at all that someone files that claim for. Even bigger companies might just err on the side of caution and take down anything flagged, the way they once did with DMCA notices. That system was abused for quite some time.
Consensual adult porn, for instance, is legal here and protected by the First Amendment. What if your porn company's rival just files that notice on you? Can Pornhub adjudicate every dispute in 48 hours?
What happens with a claim made against any communication that is end-to-end encrypted and thus unviewable by the operator? Etc.
"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. "
And as the article states, laws already exist to address the issue. To simply assume this law would be interpreted or executed in good faith, especially given the current American political climate, seems naive.
GDPR is fine. The only annoying thing about it is the petulant malicious compliance banners that some sites started using in response. Unfortunately it didn’t destroy the ad/tracking based internet, but that was probably too optimistic.
Now it's obvious of course.
The broader issue with GDPR is the benefit it gives incumbents over startups.
GDPR is the source of all those "mandatory cookie consent" banners that Firefox now has builtin features to detect them.
COPPA besides making websites either ban children or become "family-friendly", led to this corporate scheme: `A small fee was charged by Microsoft under COPPA as a way to verify parental consent. The fee was donated to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.[48] Google, however, charges a small fee as a way to verify one's date of birth. `( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Prot... )
CDA and its derivatives, striped much of section 230 protections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Sec...