Comment

Comment on Teen deepfake victim pushes for federal law targeting AI-generated explicit content

the text of the bill exempts service providers from any liabilities as long as they make a good faith attempt to remove it as soon as they are aware of its existence. So if someone makes AI generated revenge porn on your instance as long as you take it down when notified, you want be in trouble.

source

Sort:hotnew top

General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Which part says that?

source
- TORFdot0@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Section 2252D (a) Offense.—Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, discloses or threatens to disclose an intimate digital depiction—
  
  “(1) with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial harm to the finances or reputation of the depicted individual; or
  
  “(2) with actual knowledge that, or reckless disregard for whether, such disclosure or threatened disclosure will cause physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm to the depicted individual,
  
  …
  
  (d) Limitations.—For purposes of this section, a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be held liable on account of—
  
  “(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of intimate digital depictions; or
  
  “(2) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or other persons the technical means to restrict access to intimate digital depictions.
  
  So the law requires intent and carves out exceptions for service providers that try to remove it.
  
  You can read the whole text here
  
  source
  - General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The lower part just says that overeager removal of depictions does not create liability. Say, onlyfans bans the account of a creator because some face recognition AI thought their porn depicted a celebrity. They have no recourse for lost income.
    
    As to the upper part, I am not sure what “reckless disregard” means in this context. I don’t think it means that you only have to act if you happen to receive a complaint. If you see nudes of some non-porn celebrity, then it’s mostly likely a fake. It seems reckless not to remove it immediately. What if there are not enough mods to look at each image. Is it reckless to keep operating?
    
    source
    TORFdot0@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    (d) Limitations.—For purposes of this section, a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be held liable on account of—
    
    “(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of intimate digital depictions; or
    
    “(2) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or other persons the technical means to restrict access to intimate digital depictions.
    
    I appreciate your reading into the text. I am not a lawyer so it isn’t always how to read the legal language crafted into these bills. Since the quoted part of the law is under the criminal penalty section of the bill, I read it as releasing the service provider from criminal liability if they try to stop the distribution of it. But I can see your point as well.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments