from the some-transparency-for-take-it-down dept

Today marks the deadline for online platforms to implement a process for notice-and-takedown of nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) under the TAKE IT DOWN Act (TIDA), which became law one year ago. Starting today, platforms must conspicuously offer a notice-and-removal process for NCII, remove reported material within 48 hours of a “valid removal request” from the person depicted (or their authorized agent), and “make reasonable efforts to identify and remove” duplicates. (I have some qualms about the constitutionality of that last requirement, but that’s a post for another time.) 

Many members of civil society warned Congress while the bill was being negotiated that these takedown requirements are ripe for abuse, but they were ignored. Now that the provisions are in effect, we deserve to find out whether those warnings come true. Platforms should add TAKE IT DOWN takedown statistics to their periodic transparency reports.

A short refresher on the law: TIDA criminalizes the knowing and intentional disclosure of NCII, whether it’s real or AI, whether it’s of adults or minors. The criminal provisions apply to users; the takedown provisions apply to platforms. The definition of a “covered platform” encompasses public-facing user-generated content (UGC)-driven platforms, as well as sites devoted to NCII (what used to be called “revenge porn” sites). The definition exempts ISPs, email service providers, and services that mostly serve “preselected” content and to which UGC is incidental – for example, this site, which posts articles like this one but allows the Techdirt community to comment on them. 

TIDA’s takedown provisions are, in some ways, the codification of existing practices platforms already employ for removing abusive content. Some platforms have ostensibly been removing reported NCII pursuant to a voluntary initiative that dates back to 2021. There’s a similar initiative for terrorist content. Also, existing federal law criminalizes child sex abuse material (CSAM) and requires prompt reporting of apparent CSAM once a platform becomes aware of it. That law explicitly doesn’t require platforms to affirmatively go looking for CSAM (for the same constitutional reasons that give me pause about TIDA’s duplicate-removal provision). Nevertheless, numerous platforms voluntarily have tools and processes in place to proactively detect CSAM, then remove and report it. Plus, just about every online platform has notice-and-takedown processes for copyright-infringing UGC. That’s because everyone wants to qualify for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor against (potentially ruinous) infringement liability.

Given these existing endeavors in the domains of NCII, CSAM, terrorism, and copyright, hopefully a lot of platforms were able to spend the past year adapting and extending their pre-existing notice-and-removal flows rather than having to reinvent the wheel. Whatever efforts they’ve put into compliance to date are about to be put to the test. Platforms should tell us – their users, Congress, the American public, NCII victims, etc. – how they’re working out.

Much has already been said here at Techdirt about the problems with TIDA’s takedown requirements, so I need not repeat those critiques at length. In brief: 48 hours is incredibly fast, the law doesn’t require a process for the user whose content was removed to appeal a takedown or have it restored, it imposes no penalties for bad-faith takedown requests, and it does a poor job of respecting First Amendment protections for speech. It immunizes platforms from liability for removing content that isn’t actually illegal NCII, while simultaneously giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the power to police compliance, as the agency’s chairman reminded a dozen or so major companies in a letter last week. 

This is a recipe for rampant abuse. It incentivizes a “remove first, ask questions never” approach. And it’s particularly dangerous in our current political moment. Not only did President Trump vow to use TIDA against unflattering online speech about him, the Trump FTC is led by two hard-right Republican commissioners who’ve been using their position to pursue an anti-LGBTQ, anti-porn agenda. TIDA’s extremely abusable takedown mandate thus poses a huge risk to online free speech in general, and to content posted by queer and trans people and sex workers in particular. 

With all that said, the takedown requirements have the potential to do a lot of good. I’ve spent the past several years studying AI-generated CSAM, particularly the use of “nudify” apps – and, more recently, Grok –- to create nonconsensual deepfake pornography. I know from my research that one of the harms experienced by victims of NCII (whether deepfake or real) is the fear that anytime someone looks them up online, their NCII will come up in the results. Not only is that humiliating, it could impact their educational and career opportunities, romantic prospects, and other relationships. If platforms have to take down their NCII at their request and keep it down, that may help assuage those fears. (That said, generative AI’s capacity to rapidly make a variety of distinct images could make it hard for victims to keep up, since the onus to submit removal requests is on them or their authorized agents. That’s undeniably burdensome, even if it’s the only way for platforms to know for sure that a particular image is NCII and not constitutionally-protected consensual adult pornography.)

In short, the notice-and-takedown process mandated by TIDA might turn out to be really helpful to NCII victims, or it might be wildly abused, or both. The platforms receiving and processing those notices are the only ones who will know. That’s why they should tell us in their transparency reports. 

To be clear, TIDA doesn’t mandate transparency reporting (though Congress occasionally proposes it). Rather, transparency reports have become a standard practice by platforms over the past 15+ years; they’re typically issued once or twice per year (or even quarterly). You can review the transparency reports from companies like Google (which pioneered the practice in 2010), TikTok, LinkedIn, OpenAI, etc. Transparency reports commonly list statistics for content removals, account actions, and/or regulatory reporting for such categories as copyright, CSAM, spam, scams, and government requests to remove data or to produce data about users. There may be further breakdowns such as percent of requests fully or partially complied with, and the report may explain the platform’s policies for evaluating requests. 

Now that TAKE IT DOWN is fully in effect, platforms should add a category to their transparency reports for TIDA takedown requests, encompassing statistics as well as policy explainers. Here are a few; I’m sure veteran platform employees could add more:

• How many TIDA notices did the platform receive during the time period in question? 
• What percentage of notices did the platform comply with, and what percentage did it reject as invalid? 
• What percentage of notices involved adults, what percentage involved minors, and what percentage are age-unknown?
• What was the average time to takedown? (Of course, the platform probably won’t publish this stat unless it’s under 48 hours.)
• How many takedowns were later reversed and put back, if any?
• What is the total number of unique individuals for whom takedown notices were submitted?
• For companies acting as authorized agents, what are their names and how many requests did they submit? (Sure to be a growth industry under TIDA.)
• How does the platform count notices that fall under multiple legal authorities? For example, a minor’s nude selfie could potentially fall under 3-4 different transparency reporting categories: TIDA, CSAM, DMCA, or terms of service (TOS) violation.
• What is the platform’s policy for evaluating the validity of notices? 
• Does the platform have a process for appeals and putbacks of removed content, even though TIDA does not mandate one?
• What happens to accounts that receive multiple TIDA notices? Is there a “strike system” like many platforms have for repeated copyright infringement or TOS violations?
• What is the platform’s policy about nonconsensually-posted sexually suggestive content? Will it remove it under TIDA, or as a TOS violation? (Things like bikini or lingerie pictures technically don’t meet the definition TIDA uses for intimate imagery, but TIDA requests will surely get used for, say, the nonconsensual deepfake bikini pics Grok was churning out at the start of the year.)

This information will give insights to Congress, users, and the public about how well or poorly the TAKE IT DOWN Act is achieving its intended goal of helping victims get their nonconsensually-shared images offline, while also revealing the prevalence of the sorts of improper and abusive takedown notices the law’s shoddy drafting invites. It might also reveal tensions in how TIDA interacts with other statutes, such as Section 230, the DMCA, and CSAM laws. Those insights, in turn, could be used to make reforms to TIDA – whether to fix the deficiencies everyone already warned Congress about, address any revealed incompatibilities with other laws, or improve the law’s viability as a remedy for NCII victims (without further eroding free speech protections). 

The first half of 2026 ends six weeks from now. That might be too soon to add TIDA statistics to platforms’ H1 2026 transparency reports – especially since many platforms will have just gotten their TIDA processes up and running and will now be busy working out the kinks. But by the end of 2026, I don’t think this is too much to ask. Congress has proposed a seemingly endless number of online safety bills in recent years (RIP Mike’s blood pressure), but the TAKE IT DOWN Act is one of the few to have actually become law, warts and all. We deserve to know how it’s working.

Filed Under: csam, ftc, ncii, removals, take it down act, transparency

Last year at Google I/O, we got a promising, if frustratingly limited, look at Android XR. At this year’s event, the company confirmed that the first glasses from Warby Parker and Gentle Monster are finally coming later this year.

Those frames are still under wraps, though we got a bit of a preview during the I/O keynote. But Google’s developer conference did, at least, give us a much clearer picture of how its smart glasses will work. Given that Meta has a years-long headstart, Google will have a lot to prove. But despite being almost embarrassingly late to the smart glasses game, Google has a few significant advantages. And, after trying out the latest Android XR glasses, I suspect at least some people will prefer these over Meta’s Ray-Ban shades.

The glasses I demoed were not the branded frames briefly shown off during the keynote. They were “reference hardware” that Google uses for its own internal development. These glasses also had a built-in display, unlike the Warby Parker and Gentle Monster specs, which will be audio-only. But they didn’t really look or feel like a prototype either. While not quite as polished as my Ray-Ban Meta frames, they weren’t overly thick or nerdy looking. And they felt much lighter than the extra chunky Meta Ray-Ban Display frames.

Igor Bonifacic for Engadget

The display setup is similar to the prototype I saw last year, with a single window over the right lens. On the reference hardware, it had a 20-degree field of view, though Google was quick to point out that specific specs could change.

While the display was impressive — it was every bit as crisp and bright as the Meta equivalent — it was obvious that even the audio-only Android XR glasses could have a big advantage over Meta and other would-be rivals. Namely, that Google has been able to integrate its own apps and, yes, Gemini into the frames in a way that seems incredibly useful.

For example, using Google Translate was much more seamless than my experience with Meta’s glasses. I was able to move between a Google rep speaking Spanish and my colleague Igor Bonifacic speaking Serbian and the glasses kept the translation going without interruption. It also adeptly ignored the people around me speaking English, and only showed a real-time translation of what was being said in a foreign language. There probably aren’t that many real-life situations when you would need to move between multiple languages inside of the same conversation, but the fact that it was possible underscores Google’s advantage.

While I’ve generally been impressed with Meta’s AI glasses’ translation abilities, you can only do one language at a time. You also need to download the language to your phone ahead of time, which can make spur of the moment translations tricky.

Igor Bonifacic for Engadget

The non-display glasses will also still benefit from multimodal capabilities, which rely on the onboard cameras and Gemini to surface information based on your surroundings. I was able to look at a recipe and ask Gemini to add the ingredients to my shopping list on Google Keep. Gemini actually briefly struggled with the command, but I didn’t have to stop and start over. I kept speaking and it was able to adjust on the fly.

I’ve often complained that one of the biggest drawbacks of Meta’s glasses is that they work with relatively few third-party apps. While Meta’s working on fixing that, for now they’re great if you want to read WhatsApp messages or Instagram DMs, but there aren’t as many options outside of the company’s ecosystem. Android XR may also be heavily reliant on Google’s own ecosystem, at least for now, but being able to access Maps, Gmail and Keep feels much more practical to my everyday life.

Maps in particular could be especially useful. In my latest demo, I was once again able to get walking directions in the display, alongside a little map view when looking down towards the ground. The audio-only XR glasses won’t have the benefit of a visual guide, but Google will still be able to provide walking directions via audio cues. You can also look at restaurants and businesses around you and ask Gemini for reviews and information. I’ve long thought that travel is one of the best use cases for smartglasses. The addition of Google Maps data is a real advantage, especially when you think about combining that with other features like real-time translations and navigation.

I still have some unanswered questions about how all this will work when it’s in a pair of glasses people can actually buy. And Google still hasn’t revealed specs or pricing for the consumer version of these glasses. But there’s already a lot to look forward to.

Public Sector

Minister demands AI becomes ‘basic expectation for all public entities’

The wave of layoffs attributable to the adoption of AI has washed up on the shores of New Zealand, which has announced an overhaul of its public service that will see the technology become a “basic expectation” for government agencies and help to make it possible to sack 9,000 staff – about 14 percent of current headcount.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced the job cuts yesterday, in a speech that saw her bemoan the fact that New Zealand’s government comprises 39 departments and ministries, and compared that to the 16 in Australia and 24 in the UK.

She characterized the nation’s public service as “scared of AI, slow to move to the cloud” and said it operates a “complex and fragmented set of overlapping IT solutions.”

“Our government is as frustrated as you are by the fragmentation and silos, the complexity, the status-quo thinking and the dangerously slow take up of digital and AI technologies,” she added.

Aotearoa’s answer is to task its Chief Digital Officer “to embed AI deployment as a basic expectation for all public entities.”

Minister Willis mentioned a “recent trial of an AI scribe tool in hospital emergency rooms which has reduced the amount of time clinicians have to spend on file notes and increased the time they spend with patients” as an example of the sort of thing she hopes to replicate.

She said the planned overhaul will therefore “reduce the number of government departments, increase the use of AI and other digital tools, and deliver significant savings.”

The government plans to cap departmental budgets and says that combined with redundancies it will save NZ$2.4 billion ($1.4 billion) over four years – less than one percent of all core government spending.

Plenty of tech companies have made substantial redundancies that they justify as necessary to create an appropriate workforce for the age of AI, an explanation we’ve seen deployed to explain deep cuts at Cisco, Cloudflare, Atlassian, Meta, and Arctic Wolf.

Few governments have done likewise, but one early high-profile effort – the Elon-Musk-led “Department of Government Efficiency” – hoped to use AI to improve government operations but left behind little evidence it had succeeded.

New Zealand is blessed with many resources and extraordinary natural beauty, but has a modest tax base – yet residents expect a high level of government services. Minister Willis’s plan is therefore a very big bet on AI. ®

SiliconRepublic.com has asked Meta about the extent of layoffs in Ireland.

Meta is reportedly reassigning 7,000 workers to new, more AI-aligned roles, just ahead of the sweeping layoffs expected at the company tomorrow (20 May).

According to a memo, first reported by Reuters, Meta’s human resources head Janelle Gale said that the new corporate structure will be “flatter”, with “smaller teams”.

“As org leaders worked on the changes, many of them incorporated AI-native design principles ⁠into their new org structures,” she wrote.

“We’re now at the stage where many orgs can operate with a flatter structure with smaller teams of ​pods/cohorts that can move faster and with more ownership.”

New departments where employees are being transferred include Applied AI Engineering, Agent Transformation Accelerator XFN, Central Analytics and Enterprise Solutions.

This comes as workers at the company are reportedly dissatisfied with leaders over recent moves, leading to angry internal communications and a petition against Meta’s mouse-tracking software used to train the company’s AI models.

Meta’s work structure overhaul comes after the company decided to cut 8,000 jobs – or 10pc of its workforce – last month, in an effort to mitigate its AI-related expenses. 6,000 planned recruitments at the company have also been halted as a result.

Current headcount at Meta stands at 77,986 as of 31 March, with around 1,800 in Ireland. SiliconRepublic.com has asked Meta about the extent of layoffs in Ireland.

The social media giant’s move reflects the growing importance AI is taking at the workplace – no longer merely an optional tool used to improve productivity.

Earlier this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that 2026 might be the year “AI starts to dramatically change the way that we work”.

“We’re starting to see projects that used to require big teams now be accomplished by a single very talented person,” he said. Zuckerberg is also reportedly developing an AI-powered version of himself to interact with employees.

Similar views around workforce thinning were shared by Amazon after the company cut 16,000 jobs in January, as well as Block, which cut 4,000 jobs in February.

Block head and chair Jack Dorsey said that a “majority of companies” would reach similar conclusions to his around smaller teams and make similar structural changes “within the next year”.

Meanwhile, reports suggest that AI’s uptake in many Irish and UK-based organisations is not adequately supported by targeted investment in skills and technology adoption.

As one of the biggest AI spenders, Meta recently upgraded its capital expenditure budget to $145bn. The company said the expanded budget would help fund its Superintelligence Labs efforts, higher component pricing and additional data centre costs.

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.