US President Donald Trump signed legal provisions on Monday Remove the actwhich requires the platforms to remove the inconsistent instances of “intimate visual performance” within 48 hours of receiving the request. Companies that last longer or are not consistent at all may be subject to penalties of approximately USD 50,000 for a violation.
The law received support from technology companies such as Google, Meta and Microsoft and will come into force over the following year. The enforcement will be left to the Federal Trade Commission, which is entitled to punish companies for what he considers unfair and disingenuous business practices. Other countries, including India, have introduced similar regulations requiring quick removal of sexual photos or deep wardrobes. Delays can lead to uncontrolled dissemination of content on the Internet; For example, Microsoft took months in one clamorous case.
But free speech supporters They are afraid that the lack of a handrail in the Take IT Down Act can allow evil actors to weapon the policy of forcing technology companies to unjustly censor online content. The up-to-date law is modeled on Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which requires internet service providers to quickly remove materials that someone claims to violate their copyrights. Companies may be financially responsible for ignoring essential applications, which was motivated by many companies to error on the side of caution and pretty removal of content before the dissolution of the dispute with copyright.
Over the years, fraudsters have used the DMCa removal process to obtain censorship of content for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright violations. In some cases, the information is unflattering or belongs to industry competitors they want to hurt. DMCA covers provisions that allow fraudsters to bear financial responsibility when they make false claims. For example, Google secured last year Judgment for failure Against two people accused of organizing a competitors’ suppression program in the shirt industry by submitting frivolous requests to remove hundreds of thousands of search results.
Fraudsters who could be afraid of punishment for abuse of DMCA could find this less risky path. The Act on Take It Down does not include a solid scapering provision, which requires that the request to remove “good faith” does not specify penalties for acting in bad faith. Unlike DMCA, the up-to-date law also does not present the appeal process for alleged perpetrators to question what they consider to be wrong. Critics of the regulation claim that it should snail-paced down some content, including materials that can be seen as in the interest of society to stay on the Internet.
Another problem is that the 48-hour deadline specified in the Act on Take IT Down may limit the number of companies verified before making a decision about their approval. Groups of freedom of speech say that it can lead to removing content far beyond the inconsistent “visually intimate performances”, and invite abuse by the same types of fraudsters who used DMCA.