Tag: internet

Trump Signs Take It Down Act

President Donald Trump has now signed into law the Take It Down Act, a measure designed to address the spread of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including increasingly prevalent AI-generated deepfakes.

While the legislation is being celebrated by both major parties as a victory for online safety, particularly for children and victims of abuse, it has also raised concerns about the potential for overreach, selective enforcement, and the erosion of free speech under the guise of digital protection, particularly because of the broad wording of the bill.

The law’s most prominent advocate within the administration has been First Lady Melania Trump, who campaigned heavily for its passage and made rare public appearances to promote it. During the Rose Garden signing ceremony, President Trump invited her to add her signature beneath his, an unusual but symbolic gesture that underscored her role in pushing the legislation forward.

“This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused,” Mrs Trump said. In her remarks, she repeated her criticism of AI and social media, calling them “the digital candy for the next generation,” and warned that these technologies “can be weaponized, shaped beliefs, and sadly affect emotions and even be deadly.”

President Trump, for his part, appeared to dismiss constitutional concerns. “People talked about all sorts of First Amendment, Second Amendment. They talked about any amendment they could make up, and we got it through because of some very brave people,” he said.

Earlier in the year, during his March 4 address to Congress, Trump had signaled his intent to sign the bill. “The Senate passed the Take It Down Act…Once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.”

While made in jest, the remark pointed to an unresolved issue: how this law will be enforced, and who will benefit most from it.

There is no denying the harm caused by NCII. Victims often struggle to remove intimate images, whether real or AI-generated, while the content continues to spread. The Take It Down Act requires websites to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a complaint. But, just like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), platforms have little way of determining if a complaint is legitimate or being used as a censorship mechanism.

That timeline is designed to offer swift recourse to victims. However, the law’s broad wording leaves its applications open to interpretation.

The bill defines a violation as involving an “identifiable individual” engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” without offering a clear or narrow definition of what that conduct entails. This vagueness creates a gray area that could easily be used to suppress satire, parody, or even critical political speech.

Keep reading

Virginia’s new social media law targets teen access via parental consent, age checks

Virginia is preparing to enforce one of the nation’s most sweeping new restrictions on social media access for teens, requiring parental consent, time limits and age checks for users under 16.

The law, signed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin in May, takes effect Jan. 1, 2026, and applies to any platform that allows public profiles, messaging and shared content feeds.

Senate Bill 854 requires users to use a neutral age screen to determine if a user is under 16 and then secure verifiable parental consent before allowing more than one hour of daily use per service.

It also bars platforms from treating a minor’s data as if it belongs to an adult, even when shared through browser plug-ins or common devices.

Virginia joins more than a dozen states that have passed or proposed laws since 2023 to regulate children’s access to social media, including Utah, Texas, Florida, Maryland and California. While the details vary, most require age verification and parental consent for minors to create accounts or use apps beyond a time limit.

Privacy advocates say the law could have unintended consequences. Jason Kelley, associate director of digital strategy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the measure may increase data collection rather than limit it.

“Any time a company is required by law to collect more information, there are data privacy risks,” Kelley said, noting that platforms may turn to tools like geolocation, facial scans or ID verification to meet the law’s requirements.

He also raised legal concerns, pointing out that similar laws in other states have been paused or overturned in court.

“Like similar laws in other states, it’s unlikely Virginia’s law will survive judicial scrutiny,” Kelley said.

He also raised concerns that verification systems may not work for all families.

“These systems don’t necessarily take into account a large number of non-traditional families,” Kelley said. “Regardless, such restrictions are not enforcing parental authority. They are imposing governmental authority, subject only to a parental veto.”

Supporters of the law say it gives parents a stronger role in managing their children’s online habits. In a written response, Sen. Schuyler Van Valkenburg’s office said the law is enforced under the existing Consumer Protection Act and handled by the Virginia Attorney General’s Office.

Keep reading

KOSA Reintroduced: Child “Safety” Bill Raises Alarms Over Internet Surveillance, Digital ID, and Free Speech Risks

Senators have once again put forward the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), reviving a bill that, if enacted, would radically reshape how Americans experience the internet.

Promoted as a measure to protect children, this latest version now carries the backing of Apple, a tech giant that has publicly endorsed the legislation as a meaningful step toward improving online safety.

But behind the bipartisan sales pitch and industry support lies a framework that risks expanding government control over online content and eroding user privacy through mandated age verification and surveillance infrastructure.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

KOSA is often described as a child protection bill, requiring platforms to limit exposure to content that could contribute to mental health issues such as depression or disordered eating.

What is less emphasized by its sponsors is how the bill empowers the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and sue platforms over speech that’s deemed “harmful” to minors.

Though lawmakers insist the bill does not authorize the censorship of content, it effectively places government pressure on websites to sanitize what users see, or face liability. Such chilling effects rarely need explicit censorship orders to shape outcomes.

Keep reading

EU nations seek mandatory social media age checks

France, Spain, and Greece are advocating for mandatory age verification on social media platforms such as Meta’s Facebook and Elon Musk’s X, Bloomberg reported on Friday.

The proposed rules would require all internet-connected devices to be equipped with age verification technology. Digital services ministers from the three EU member states are coordinating the initiative ahead of a meeting with their counterparts from the bloc on June 6, a document cited by Bloomberg said.

The three nations reportedly argue that the “lack of proper and widespread age-verification mechanisms” makes it difficult to effectively enforce age limits. They aim to leverage the economic power of the EU’s 450 million consumers to compel tech companies to implement robust verification systems, according to the report.

French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed on Tuesday his support for mandatory age verification for teenagers registering on social media platforms, stating that online networks have contributed to suffering and mental health issues among young people.

“We must protect our children,” he told TF1, adding that age verification on social networks should be imposed.

According to Bloomberg, the European Commission, along with several bloc members, is already developing pilot projects to boost parental controls and age verification. However, their efforts are being hindered by regulatory differences across EU countries and the ease with which users can access social networks from outside the bloc.

Keep reading

Redefining Obscenity: Lawmakers Take Aim at More Online Content

Two Republican lawmakers are advancing a bill that could dramatically expand the federal government’s ability to criminalize certain content online.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Mary Miller of Illinois have introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA), legislation that aims to overhaul the legal definition of obscenity and give prosecutors wide authority to target more online content.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Supporters of the bill claim it is designed to protect families and children from harmful material, but civil liberties advocates warn that its sweeping language threatens to criminalize large swaths of constitutionally protected expression.

IODA discards key elements of the Supreme Court’s long-standing Miller test, which has served as the nation’s benchmark for identifying obscene content since 1973. Under that framework, courts assess whether material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a “patently offensive” way by community standards, and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Lee and Miller’s bill replaces that careful balancing test with a rigid federal definition. According to the proposed language, content is considered obscene if “taken as a whole, [it] appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion,” if it “depicts, describes or represents actual or simulated sexual acts with the objective intent to arouse, titillate, or gratify the sexual desires of a person,” and if it “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

Promoting the bill, Lee declared, “Obscenity isn’t protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unenforceable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children.” He added, “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.”

Keep reading

Virginia passes law to limit time teens spend on social media to one hour a day

Virginia teens under 16 will soon face limits on their social media usage after Governor Glenn Youngkin signed new legislation into law.

The law requires social media companies to set default time limits of one hour per day for users under 16 years old, with parents having the ability to adjust that time up or down.

“It’s a good first start, and it’s a good way for parents to be able to have better control over how much social media their kids are on,” said Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D – Henrico), who co-sponsored the legislation.

VanValkenburg, who teaches in Henrico County schools, has witnessed the impact of excessive social media use firsthand.

“You see how much it hinders their ability to do well in school, and you see how much it hinders their socialization with their friends,” VanValkenburg said.

Keep reading

FBI Has Launched 250 Probes Tied To Online Networks That Prey On Minors

The FBI has been investigating at least 250 subjects allegedly tied to violent online networks that prey on minors.

The networks, under investigation by all of the FBI’s 55 field offices, are known as “764” but have other names.

“The FBI is growing increasingly concerned about a loose network of violent predators who befriend minors and other vulnerable individuals through popular online platforms and then coerce them into escalating sexual and violent behavior,“ the FBI said in a May 8 statement to The Epoch Times, noting this includes ”pushing victims to create graphic content, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), harm family pets, cut themselves with sharp objects, or attempt suicide.”

“Some of these predators even watch live-streamed self-harm and other violent content.”

The FBI had issued a public service announcement on March 6, warning about “a sharp increase” in the activity of “764” and other such online networks.

In targeting minors, the bureau said, these networks “use threats, blackmail, and manipulation to coerce or extort victims into producing, sharing, or live-streaming acts of self-harm, animal cruelty, sexually explicit acts, and/or suicide.”

“The footage is then circulated among members of the network to continue to extort victims and exert control over them,” it said in the March announcement.

The platforms exist on social media, gaming platforms, and mobile applications, with the victims usually being between the ages of 10 and 17, though some aged 9 have also been targeted, according to the FBI.

“These violent actors target vulnerable populations to include children, as well as those who struggle with a variety of mental health issues, such as depression, eating disorders, or suicidal ideation,” the bureau said.

Predators, they said, usually “groom their victims by first establishing a trusting or romantic relationship before eventually manipulating and coercing them into engaging in escalating harmful behavior designed to shame and isolate them.”

Keep reading

Trump says he’s ending Biden’s ‘Digital Equity’ program — and Democrats are freaking out

Democrats are furious at President Donald Trump for saying that he will shut down the Digital Equity Act signed into law by former President Joe Biden.

The president said Thursday that he wanted to end the program signed into law in 2021, which spent billions ostensibly to expand internet access to underserved communities.

“I have spoken with my wonderful Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, and we agree that the Biden/Harris so-called ‘Digital Equity Act’ is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL,” wrote Trump on Truth Social.

“No more woke handouts based on race!” he added. “The Digital Equity Program is a RACIST and ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway. I am ending this IMMEDIATELY, and saving Taxpayers BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!”

Some of the funds allocated for the bill have already been handed out, including to some red states like Kansas, Alabama, and Arkansas. Defenders of the bill deny the president’s allegation that it is racist and claim that the legislation hardly even mentions race, according to the New York Times.

Democrat Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, who authored the bill, expressed her outrage at the suggestion.

“It is absolutely insane that resources meant to help red and blue communities—everyone from local school districts and libraries to workforce training programs and Tribes—close the digital divide will be illegally blocked because the President doesn’t like the word equity,” wrote Murray.

“Americans are sick and tired of extremist right-wing culture wars being forced down our throats,” she added. “Republicans will have to explain to their constituents why this Republican administration doesn’t believe their local library should get funding to help seniors navigate telehealth options or why middle schoolers in rural districts shouldn’t get laptops.”

Keep reading

India Poised to Approve Starlink, Provided It Supports User Surveillance and Content Censorship

India’s Ministry of Communications has issued a memorandum that details the conditions under which the country’s authorities would approve licenses to Starlink and other Global Mobile Personal Communication by Satellite (GMPCS) companies.

A set of rules required of these operators is interpreted in some reports as an obligation to agree to facilitate surveillance and censorship.

At the same time, it is acknowledged that most countries impose similar rules – but the memo and its provisions are above all framed as a test for Starlink owner, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, and his commitment to free speech.

Starlink has shown interest in entering the Indian market and has service resale deals with two of the country’s largest telecommunications firms. But making those deals operational depends on being granted a license, with the memorandum now explaining the 29 conditions that companies must meet.

GMPCS operators will have to ensure security clearance for gateway/hub location in India, as well as that functionality such as lawful interception facility, monitoring/control facility of user terminals, data traffic routing, etc., are located in the country.

Unregistered terminals will be immediately disconnected, while those registered for one location and then moved will be locked.

“Rogue for malicious activities” terminals are to be blocked without delay.

During hostilities, those issued GMPCS licenses must be able to restrict or deny service either based on specific geo-locations or to individuals or groups of subscribers.

Another requirement is to set up special monitoring zones 50 kilometers within the land borders and the exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles).

Keep reading

The Net Neutrality Hydra: Twice Decapitated, Still Standing

We still use the internet under net neutrality regulations (aka Obamanet), despite its repeal by the Trump administration in 2017 and an unsuccessful attempt to reimpose them on the federal level by the Biden administration.

The issue persists because regulations equivalent to net neutrality were enacted as state laws by nearly all Democrat-controlled states, effectively imposing it as a nationwide mandate. For example, California passed a harsh net neutrality law, SB-822, in 2018 while the FCC repeal of Obamanet was still enjoined and litigated. This California legislation was challenged by industry groups in 2018, who were joined by the Department of Justice in 2020. This was a half-hearted effort. The plaintiffs brought only claims and arguments based on federal preemption. The court did not grant an injunction, and the litigation continued into the Biden administration, when plaintiffs dropped their case.

Plaintiffs elected not to bring constitutional claims, despite net neutrality laws and regulations breaching at least the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the famous Section 230. The industry groups were likely intimidated, and the DOJ was in shambles.

Contrary to the massive propaganda, net neutrality regulations and laws do not regulate broadband internet service providers. These laws regulate how citizens access and use the internet from their homes. It is achieved by defining all the ways customers want to obtain content and services over the internet as “broadband internet access,” then prohibiting all services that allow customers to exercise their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The target of the regulations is the citizenry, not industry.

Keep reading