Marsha Blackburn Bundles Every Bad Tech Bill Into One, Slaps Trump’s Name On It
Link /
Archive
Fourteen years ago, right after the FCC issued its order on net neutrality, Marsha Blackburn flipped out and released a video talking (misleadingly!) about how wonderful Facebook and Twitter were and how they
would be destroyed if the big evil government interfered in any way with the internet. As she says “there has never been a time when a consumer needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene…”
That Marsha Blackburn is long gone. Last week,
she announced a massive, sweeping bit of federal intervention in the internet, officially labeled as the “TRUMP AMERICA AI Act”—except the actual bill title is:
The Republic Unifying Meritocratic Performance Advancing Machine Intelligence by Eliminating Regulatory Interstate Chaos Across American Industry Act (TRUMP AMERICA AI) Act
The acronym doesn’t work. You’ve got “The” included and “by” ignored, an “I” from “Intelligence” skipped, and “Act” appearing twice. It’s actually TRUMP AMIBERICA AIA Act if you follow the words. Clearly some staffer was told “make this spell TRUMP AMERICA AI Act” and fed it into Grok, got this “republic unifying meritocratic” nonsense, and no one checked because slapping Trump’s name on things is the whole point.
Which matters, because given that Blackburn named it after Trump, if it somehow catches Trump’s fancy, this thing might actually move. And the bill itself is a disaster—an omnibus massively destructive internet policy overhaul masquerading as AI legislation.
First off, the part that the bill’s name references is an attempt to have Congress pass the law that Trump asked Congress for in his recent AI executive order that
pretended to ban states from passing AI laws. As we noted at the time, you need Congress to do that. An executive order doesn’t cut it. And even Republican governors like
Florida’s Ron DeSantis and
Utah’s Spencer Cox have both said “fuck no” when asked about this.
But, loyal Trumpist Blackburn is trying to have Congress block states from regulating AI. From her section-by-section explanation of the bill:
Preempt state laws and regulations related to the regulation of frontier AI developers related to the management of catastrophic risk.
But it would also do a lot of other stuff, including introducing a problematic “duty of care” on AI developers to “prevent and mitigate foreseeable harm to users.” This is one of those things that I’m sure sounds good to folks, but as we’ve explained over and over again this kind of “duty of care” is basically an anti-230 that would do real damage. It’s basically just an invitation for lawyers to sue any time anything bad happens and someone involved in the bad thing that happened somehow used an AI tool at some point.
And then you have to go through a big expensive legal process to explain “no, this thing was not because of AI” or whatever. It’s just a massive invitation to sue everyone, meaning that in the end you have just a few giant companies providing AI because they’ll be the only ones who can afford the lawsuits.
But there’s a whole lot more in the bill that has nothing to do with AI at all. It effectively repeals Section 230 by “reforming it” in a manner that flips the way 230 works. Rather than the “Good Samaritan” section that’s in there now, it will have a “Bad Samaritan” section, that would make providers potentially liable for “facilitating or soliciting third-party content that violates federal criminal law.” And, of course, some people will say that that’s fine, because you don’t want platforms doing that.
Two quick problems: one, Section 230
already exempts federal criminal law. It’s right there in section (e)(1). So to the extent this is supposedly about dealing with criminal behavior by platforms, you don’t need this change.
But the real problem is what this “Bad Samaritan” carve-out does to Section 230’s core function. Right now, 230 lets platforms get frivolous lawsuits dismissed quickly at the motion to dismiss stage. This change would force every platform to go through lengthy, expensive litigation to prove they weren’t “facilitating” (an incredibly vague term) or “soliciting” third-party content that violates federal criminal law.
That’s gutting the main reason Section 230 exists. Instead of quick dismissals, you get discovery, depositions, and trials, all while someone argues that because your algorithm showed someone a post, you were “facilitating” whatever criminal content they claim to find.
Next up; the bill effectively shoves KOSA into the bill. Blackburn’s been pushing KOSA forever. Remember,
she wants KOSA to stop “the transgender in our culture.” KOSA keeps stalling out in Congress because it’s a really bad bill that would encourage tremendous online censorship, and sooner or later enough elected officials on both sides of the aisle realize “shit, this would be bad if the other side were in power.”
It also throws in the “NO FAKES Act” for funsies. If you don’t recall, the “NO FAKES” Act
would mandate filters and scanning across the internet, destroy anonymous speech, and block a wide variety of useful innovations. For all the complaining MAGA has done about EU internet regulations, NO FAKES goes way beyond anything that the EU requires in terms of blatant censorship.
You know, the kind that Marsha Blackburn warned about, claiming Obama was coming for your internet and was going to suppress speech?
And that’s not all. The bill also has some nonsense requiring AI to undergo “audits” to make sure they’re not biased against conservatives. I only wish I were kidding.
Oh, and it completely upends copyright law in multiple concerning ways, effectively wiping out fair use, creating a new form of copyright infringement specifically for AI-generated works, giving the FTC a role in enforcing copyright law, and revamping how collective licensing works. This is, of course, a gift to the recording industry which has a large presence in her state of Tennessee.
Basically, this is an omnibus bill that would change nearly every US government policy regarding how the internet works, tackling AI, Section 230, copyright, and a bunch of other nonsense all in one bill. And Blackburn has cynically named it after Donald Trump hoping he’ll get on board and hound the MAGA folks in Congress to pass it.
So to recap: the Marsha Blackburn who said 14 years ago that “there has never been a time when a consumer needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene” has introduced a bill that would have federal bureaucrats intervene in basically every aspect of how the internet works: content moderation decisions, mandate bias audits, preempt state laws, require speech scanning across the internet, and fundamentally reshape how platforms, AI developers, and copyright holders operate online.
All (literally) in the name of Donald Trump. Because apparently when you need federal bureaucrats to intervene, what really matters is whose name is on the bill.
