General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe *REAL* reason Musk tanked the budget deal
This is short. I was reading this New York Times piece this morning (I know, I know) about the year-end budget deal and everything that was in it.
This part jumped out:
Criminalizing the publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including deepfake pornography, and requiring social media platforms to have procedures in place to remove the content after being notified by a victim.
The real reason Elon Musk went ballistic over this bill was this provision. It makes revenge porn, including deepfakes, illegal.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/12/19/2292867/-The-REAL-reason-Musk-tanked-the-budget-deal
RockRaven
(16,503 posts)protect deepfake and revenge porn on Twitter"
no_hypocrisy
(49,151 posts)Last sentence of the article in dailykos.
dalton99a
(84,832 posts)NJCher
(38,184 posts)Hasn't hit the mainstream yet, but it's pretty ugly. When it does....
And it might come from a highly credible source.
CincyDem
(6,960 posts)Mr. Evil
(2,998 posts)Musk-O-Rama or TSF. I just hope either or both of them dies soon. Sooner the better for humanity. I literally hope there is suffering involved.
ShazzieB
(18,923 posts)Of course I want the Orange Hellbeast gone, too, but with Musk's mega billions behind him, I think he's immeasurably more dangerous than he would be otherwise.
I believe Musk is a big part of why TSF won. Trump was floundering until Musk came swooping down on a magic carpet made of endless money and rescued him by pumping huge amounts of that money into the campaign.
Don't forget, this was a VERY close election, as much as Repubs would like us all to believe otherwise. I belive that vast infusion of cash gave TSF the edge he needed to squeak by with a win, and my loathing for Musk has grown by leaps and bounds ever since.
diane in sf
(4,100 posts)JI7
(90,839 posts)whathehell
(29,864 posts)illegal in 48 states.
https://ballotpedia.org/Nonconsensual_pornography_(revenge_porn)_laws_in_the_United_States
Wiz Imp
(2,344 posts)I'm sure Musk prefers to do nothing.
whathehell
(29,864 posts)either Civil, Criminal or both.
Wiz Imp
(2,344 posts)whathehell
(29,864 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2024, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)
why he, or his company "X" wouldn't be liable if one or both were found to be in violation of the law.
Wiz Imp
(2,344 posts)Understanding Section 230 Social Media Companies Get Out of Jail Free Card
Posted on May 17, 2024
Section 230 has two important sub-sections, each handing social media companies powerful tools to avoid accountability.
The first sub-section, (c)(1), immunizes platforms from lawsuits that treat them as the publisher or speaker of content created by third-party users. This means that, for instance, the parents of children who overdose on drugs obtained via social media apps cannot sue the platforms because Section 230 holds that platforms have no responsibility for content created by drug dealers on their apps, even if their algorithms do nothing or promote it in childrens feeds.
The second sub-section, (c)(2), shields companies from liability for decisions they take on what they allow users can share on their platforms. This sub-section is known as the Good Samaritan portion of Section 230 because its intent was to encourage websites to proactively remove harmful content. However, while companies can and do use this freedom to proactively remove objectionable content, nothing obliges them to do so. This means, for instance, social media companies may or may not choose to remove deepfake pornography of women on their sites without the risk of facing lawsuits from its creators.
This is why Musk doesn't want that provision passed, because then in the future he would be liable if he didn't remove it.
Here's the basic gist of the proposed law:
Criminalizing the publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including deepfake pornography, and requiring social media platforms to have procedures in place to remove the content after being notified by a victim.
Passages
(1,430 posts)Blue Full Moon
(1,302 posts)State clearly that Elon Musk is the one who tanked the bill. That should have happened after the immigrant border bill was tanked by tRump. State clearly that the deep fake and the rest is part of the reason. Re-state trump and Musk's about hardship for American families and list the items that the republicans removed from the bill. Grow a spine.
yellow dahlia
(130 posts)I wish they would address these things as they happen.
The high road is not working.
ReRe
(10,887 posts)Musk was willing to tank our government for 30 or more days, which included Christmas, all to stop that provision which would have held the publisher (him) accountable for publishing revenge porn on twitter. Were Republicans actually aware of that provision/re why Musk was so against the initial budget deal? They had to know about it, because THEY wrote the bill! So, to cover up their stupid mistake of overlooking it's presence in the bill, they all went along with Musk's big ruse for shutting down the government. Lunatics are running the asylum in the Republican Party!!!
AntiFascist
(12,970 posts)RandomNumbers
(18,229 posts)From the American Prospect. When it looked like the govt would really shut down. (Dec. 20)
Congress has been working itself into a lather about China for years now, and they finally came up with a way to deal with this issue. Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Bob Casey (D-PA) have the flagship bill, which would either prohibit U.S. companies from investing in sensitive technologies in China, including semiconductors and artificial intelligence, or set up a broad notification regime around it.
The bill would add some reporting requirements and enhanced reviews as well; in general, it expands restrictions that the Treasury Department has already put forward in regulatory rules. Codifying those rules into statute means that they cannot be changed by successive administrations.
Cornyn-Casey passed the Senate last year, and after about a year of legislative wrangling, a final outbound investment package made it into the year-end bill. Were taking a necessary step to safeguard American innovation against bad actors and ensure our lasting dominance on the world stage, Cornyn said in a statement.
Sticking to the 4 paragraph limit I had to leave a lot out. Worth it to pop over there and read the full article.
With respect to the OP, I suspect there were a few things in the bill that made President-elect Musk unhappy. So both the OP and the AP could be correct in their observations.
EDIT TO ADD: and apparently the bill that passed did have this provision stripped out. So Musk still gets his way. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219840398