Post

Update on this. Apparently the bill just passed the House... 409-2. So, uh, yeah. A ton of Dems just gave the Trump FTC more power to censor the internet. Great job guys.

Mike Masnick@masnick.com

Take It Down Act is a total censorial mess. And yet, a ton of "progressive" Dems are supporting it, even as it will enable the highly politicized and weaponized FTC to go after websites and demand content be removed from the internet. www.techdirt.com/2025/04/28/c...

1.3K reposts3.3K likes

@housedemocrats.bsky.social Congratulations: Booker Coons Duckworth Gallego Hassan Kim King Klobuchar Peters Reed Rosen Shaheen Slotkin Warner You just don't give a flying fuck do you? You handed the admin. more opportunity to censor. I'm done holding onto any hope of the (D) not giving an inch

Congress, including the left, has always been hopelessly incompetent when it comes to regulating the internet. I remember writing to Feinstein about SOPA years ago. The response I got made it clear that her office didn't understand the legislation she was championing. Embarrassing.

Meanwhile, the proposed committee substitute for the House Judiciary portion of the reconciliation budget bill includes provisions to strip the FTC of all antitrust/competition authority.

Yikes, what are the usually on it about this stuff Dems thinking? Seems like such an obviously terrible bill even without the additional disaster of it giving all this power to Trump

Definitely above zero! But it's always a bit of a crapshoot. I think a sane court would call out the unconstitutional parts. But we have a lot of less-than-sane folks on the bench these days. I do think a strong challenge could succeed though.

The attack ads write themselves for anyone who votes against a bill that, on its face, is about tackling the very real problem of non-consensual intimate imagery (just the mechanism is bad here). Bill was going to pass no matter what. So many Dems unwilling to give fodder for attack ads.

During the hearing on the bill she (correctly!) called out how the bill likely would be abused by the FTC to attack and harm the very people it claimed to help protect.

Kinda fucked up that Thomas Freaking Massie understands that the bill is wide open to abuse, but not a single Democrat voted against it. Like, what are we even doing here?

A lot of people asking why Dems would vote for this and it basically comes down to this. No one wants an attack ad on this subject. bsky.app/profile/mmas...

Mike Masnick@masnick.com

The attack ads write themselves for anyone who votes against a bill that, on its face, is about tackling the very real problem of non-consensual intimate imagery (just the mechanism is bad here). Bill was going to pass no matter what. So many Dems unwilling to give fodder for attack ads.

I want to believe there is something I am missing here... Why, after we've seen how badly subjective decisions can be abused, would people think this is a good idea?!??!!!

Mike Masnick@masnick.com

The attack ads write themselves for anyone who votes against a bill that, on its face, is about tackling the very real problem of non-consensual intimate imagery (just the mechanism is bad here). Bill was going to pass no matter what. So many Dems unwilling to give fodder for attack ads.

😩 I mean, it's one thing to vote for such stupid law in "normal" times, when you have a sliver of plausible deniability like "but we trust the system". But to vote for this when the commissioner is overtly transforming the agency into a political thought police🤦🏻🤬

Why the fuck can't Dems in Congress just do a simple test: How will Republicans immediately misuse this? Better not vote on it (or person) until we have the majority, and we can control it.