Again, I’m not judging about content moderation, but this is an extremely weak initiative.
CSAM can be detected through hashes or a machine-learning image classifier (with some false positives), whereas whether an image was shared nonconsensually seems like it'd often require context that is not in the image itself, possibly contacting the parties involved.
Everything can be detected "with some false positives". If you're happy with "with some false positives", why would you need any context?
Someone reports something for Special Pleading X, and you (the operator) have to ~instantly take down the thing, by law. There is never an equally efficient mechanism to push back against abuses -- there can't be, because it exposes the operator to legal risk in doing so. So you effectively have a one-sided mechanism for removal of unwanted content.
Maybe this is fine for "revenge porn", but even ignoring the slippery slope argument (which is real -- we already have these kinds of rules for copyrighted content!) it's not so easy to cleanly define "revenge porn".
The problem is most take downs are not actually DMCA, they are some other non-legal process that isn't under any legal penalty. Though if it ever happens to you I suspect you have a good case against whoever did this - but the lawyer costs will far exceed your total gain. (as in spend $30 million or more to collect $100). Either we need enough people affected by a false non-DMCA take down that a class action can work (you get $0.50 but at least they pay something), or we need legal reform so that all take downs against a third party are ???
Maybe true with the platonic ideal "DMCA takedown letter" (though these are rarely litigated, so who really knows), but as you note, they're incredibly common with things like the automated systems that scan for music in videos (and which actually are related to DMCA takedowns), "bad words" and the like.
> The problem is most take downs are not actually DMCA, they are some other non-legal process that isn't under any legal penalty.
It's true that most takedowns in the US aren't under DMCA, but even that once-limited process has metastasized into large, fully automated content scanning systems that proactively take down huge amounts of content without much recourse. Companies do this to avoid liability as part of safe harbor laws, or just to curry favor with powerful interests.
We're talking about US laws here, but in general, these kinds of instant-takedown laws become huge loopholes in whatever free speech provisions a country might have. The asymmetric exercise of rights essentially guarantees abuse.
While the false takedown may be rare. Using dmca as a mechanism to inflict pain where no copyright infringement has taken place is indeed common enough that it happens to small time youtubers like myself and others I have talked to.
The next step would be for the government to demand direct access to these tools. Then the government would be able to carry out holocausts against any ethnic group, only 10 times more effectively and inevitably than Hitler did.
As far as I understand, it precisely mandating to monitor EVERYONE.
They are not talking about removing a specific image from the platform based on its hash or something. They are talking about actions that involve automated analysis of all content on the platform for patterns arbitrarily specified by the government.
The technologies discussed differ from totalitarian surveillance by simply toggling a single flag on the platform, and are indistinguishable from such surveillance for the user.
But most people understand the word "surveillance" to mean more involved information collection than just deleting content that matches certain criteria.
In contrast to the proposed one, which should be able to classify all content on the platform at any arbitrary moment in time according to a post-factum specified arbitrary filter. Literally a mechanism of totalitarian surveillance.
You've got this the wrong way around. These are social media sites.
People are publicly publishing revenge porn, and the government has told sites that if they are requested to take down revenge porn then they have to.
They don't have to monitor, because they are being told of it's existence.