Bill Overview
Title: No Publicity for Terrorists Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires social media platforms to remove the accounts of certain users (individuals designated as terrorists) and establishes related penalties for failure to comply with this requirement.
Sponsors: Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11]
Target Audience
Population: People designated as terrorists who use social media platforms
Estimated Size: 500
- The bill specifically targets individuals who are designated as terrorists, focusing on removing their accounts from social media platforms.
- Individuals designated as terrorists span across various regions globally, hence the impact can be far-reaching around the world.
- Social media platforms operate globally, so the effects of this legislation will be felt internationally.
- Designations of terrorists are often determined by government and international bodies, meaning it will likely affect a wide and varied group depending on which organizations determine these designations.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a relatively small number of people specifically designated as terrorists. However, the implications of the policy are broader as it may also indirectly affect civil liberties, free speech advocates, and social media platforms.
- Considering the limited budget of $30 million in the first year, the implementation costs may include monitoring and enforcement, which could limit the impact that can be achieved directly through enforcement.
- Social media platforms will need to comply with new regulations, which may involve significant adjustments to their systems to ensure non-compliance penalties are avoided.
- The effects on the broader population primarily revolve around perceptions of safety, privacy concerns, and impacts on freedom of expression.
- The small target group (around 500 individuals in the US) means direct impacts are limited to these individuals, but broader societal implications are possible through discussions on digital rights and platform responsibilities.
Simulated Interviews
Lawyer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support controlling the spread of terrorist ideologies, but this policy risks infringing on civil liberties and freedom of speech.
- There needs to be a clear, transparent process for designation and removal to ensure wrongful removals do not occur.
- I'm concerned about potential overreach or abuse of this policy by authorities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Social Media Policy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could place substantial compliance pressure on social media companies.
- I'm concerned about the criteria for designation—if they're not clear, platforms might overzealously remove accounts to avoid penalties.
- This could impact platform user trust and engagement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
IT Professional (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security is important, but not at the cost of privacy. This policy could have chilling effects on open discourse online.
- Proper checks are necessary to ensure it targets only those directly linked with terrorist activities.
- Public oversight is essential to prevent misuse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Education Administrator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will create safer online spaces by removing harmful content.
- There needs to be balance to prevent limiting educational discussions on social media.
- I support stricter regulations on harmful content as long as due process is followed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this policy might set precedents for other forms of censorship.
- It's crucial to ensure the policy doesn't target activists or dissenters under false claims.
- Social media should be transparent about removals and designations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Homemaker (Rural Idaho)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I view this policy as a positive step towards national security.
- It's comforting to know something effective is being done against terrorism.
- I would like to see more transparency in how designations are made.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Intelligence Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy addresses a critical aspect of online terrorism.
- Enforcement is key to its success and needs substantial support.
- I worry about the resource allocation for enforcement—the budget might be a constraint.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial to ensure this policy doesn't hamper innovation in the tech sector.
- Companies need clear guidelines to avoid compliance burden.
- Transparency and appellate processes for account holders should be instituted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Journalist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Investigative journalism could be impacted if access to information is restricted too stringently.
- The policy must ensure that misinformation or false accusations aren't used to silence voices.
- Checks and balances are necessary to protect journalistic freedoms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Civil Rights Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a potential threat to free speech if not implemented carefully.
- I'm wary of government overreach and misuse of such policies.
- There must be an independent review process for any account removals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $40000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill hinges on the cooperation of international social media platforms, which may need to comply with various local laws as well.
- Enforcement may challenge privacy norms, leading to potential legal challenges and costs.
- The changing landscape of social media could adjust future impacts or costs associated with compliance.
- Technological integration to identify individuals may require frequent updates.