How effective will the Senate-passed bill, S. 4569, the Take It Down Act, which would criminalize the publication of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) be?

Probably close to zero. For two reasons:

“Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act”

So in effect, there's going to be a First Amendment problem on the scope of what is covered. It has the potential to criminalize otherwise protected speech, only because it’s on a computer network. And that’s going to be a big problem.

When a narcissist mad at their new supply, do they take it out on the old supply?

However, I'm a little bit more worried about how the vagueness is going to be used offensively to punish conduct that isn't really intended to be covered by this. I can think of a few strategic ways it could be used to threaten people for relatively benign conduct.

Eye-rolling, right?

The phrase “non-consensual intimate imagery” is targeted toward using AI to create and publish lewd imagery of a real person. (Though there is a section in the act that really just covers intimate images that aren't deepfakes at all.)

Procter & Gamble says it will cut 7,000 jobs over the next 2 years - CBS News

The TAKE IT DOWN Act is really about what its letters say:

For example, it would become a criminal act to publish a photo like this—unredacted.

You could publish the photo in a magazine. You could put it on a billboard. But you couldn't use an AI tool to generate the image—that would be a federal crime.

Patriots decline to say whether Stefon Diggs has passed key physical in contract - NBC Sports

What the feds (Cruz is the sole sponsor, I see) could have done? If they probably would have focused more on the whole take-down notice provisions and the rights of privacy and publicity, it would probably be stronger as a whole.

Don't get me wrong. Given what most of the bill covers, large sections of it will still be enforceable. But they're also a little vague. And that's going to cause some issues. People that create those kinds of images to harass or embarrass or humiliate or whatever? I don't feel bad for them in the slightest, and this law would probably punish them successfully.

It just doesn't… do much in terms of the criminalization. Most people that experience problems with this, federal law enforcement is going to do nothing for them. The feds just don’t have the resources.

Why does an older married man turn bisexual?

It will likely be held unconstitutional.

But the part about deepfakes… it probably isn't going to fly. Not because the idea of deepfakes isn't troubling. Because of the way the law is actually written.

So, simply publishing intimate photos is a federal crime. Under certain conditions. There's a takedown procedure there, and I don't really see that as being an issue. States have made publishing intimate images crimes and torts. But because computer networks fluidly crossed state boundaries, that gets complicated and messy to try to enforce to do what many victims really want—remove offending images. So, a federal takedown procedure is probably a good idea to facilitate that.

What is the craziest thing that you've ever witnessed?

To be clear, the bill is not about “non-consensual intimate imagery”. At least, not what you might think what that phrase means. It is a phrase defined in the bill—which I'll come back to in a moment.