Bill Overview
Title: 21st Century FREE Speech Act
Description: This bill makes various changes to liability protections and requirements for providers and users of an interactive computer service (e.g., a social media company). The bill replaces existing liability protections (sometimes referred to as Section 230 protection) related to content provided by third parties with more limited protections. The bill provides some liability protection for third-party content, but the protection shall not apply to a provider or user who carries out certain affirmative acts, such as barring users from the service or restricting access to or availability of material. However, the protection shall apply if the action is taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of obscene, unlawful, or other similarly objectionable material. Additionally, the bill places specific requirements on common carrier technology companies, defined in the bill as providers that offer services to the public and have over 100 million active monthly users. These companies must furnish their services to all persons upon request and in a manner that does not discriminate against or unfairly advantage any particular persons, class of persons, political or religious groups, or localities; and publicly disclose their practices for moderating content, terminating accounts, and related matters. Aggrieved individuals and state entities may sue to enforce these requirements, and the Federal Communications Commission must develop best practices for complying with the requirements. The bill's provisions do not apply to designated areas of law, including criminal law and state law.
Sponsors: Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14]
Target Audience
Population: People who use interactive computer services like social media
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill impacts liability protections related to user-generated content on interactive computer services.
- It will directly affect social media companies, especially those with over 100 million active users, by imposing new moderation and service requirements.
- It will indirectly impact the users of these platforms, as changes in liability may affect how content is moderated and accessed.
- The bill requires common carrier technology companies to disclose content moderation practices, which affects transparency for users.
- With approximately 4.48 billion social media users globally in 2021, this legislation has the potential to impact a significant portion of the internet-using population.
Reasoning
- The target population is vast, with over 300 million people potentially impacted by this policy, mainly those using social media or other interactive platforms.
- However, not every user will experience a significant change in wellbeing. Some may not notice a difference at all, while others could experience either improvements or declines based on their specific interactions.
- The policy's focus is on very large technology companies with over 100 million users, so smaller communities or niche platforms may not be directly affected.
- Given budget constraints, the implementation will not reach the entire population immediately. We should anticipate staggered impacts, with more prominent effects likely in urban or tech-heavy areas initially.
- The cost involves administrative, legal, and enforcement efforts and compliance costs for technology companies, as well as potential litigation.
- In a diverse population, impacts will vary across different demographic groups—youth, middle-aged, and elderly—as well as across those with varying tech engagement levels.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy could bring positive changes as it might ensure more transparency from big tech companies about how they handle content.
- It could level the playing field for smaller tech developers like me, as major companies might have to rethink their moderation strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Digital Marketing Specialist (New York, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried the policy might restrict the types of content we can utilize for digital marketing, making it harder to reach target audiences.
- Transparency is good, but too much regulation could be intrusive and stifle creativity and spontaneity on platforms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Content Creator (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could really help creators like me, by potentially reducing arbitrary strikes or takedowns of content.
- I'm hopeful that this will lead to fairer treatment and a better understanding of the rules I need to follow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved accountability for big tech could help reduce misinformation, which is crucial for education.
- However, it might also slow down how quickly educational content is made available or shared.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Rural Wyoming)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this will really affect me much. I use social media just to keep up with family and friends.
- My main concern is having reliable internet access, not so much what content is available.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might limit my ability to freely express myself or engage in causes I care about if platforms become overly cautious.
- I'm worried about censorship under the guise of removing objectionable content.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Entrepreneur in Online Retail (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could complicate how I advertise and reach customers if platforms become stricter on content.
- More disclosure on moderation practices is useful, but I fear it could lead to less engagement if users are wary of too much regulation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Journalist (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's potential for this policy to protect freedom of speech, but it needs strong monitoring to prevent misuse.
- I worry about the litigation aspects and the chilling effect that could have on tech companies' willingness to host diverse opinions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Attorney specializing in digital rights (Boston, MA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction, but the execution is crucial. We need to ensure it doesn’t inadvertently encourage excessive censorship.
- Monitoring how companies adapt will be key; there's a risk of losing legal protections if the rules are ambiguous.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public Health Official (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might help counter misinformation, which is critical for public health initiatives.
- On the downside, it might limit prompt information dissemination if platforms become overly cautious about sharing content swiftly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 3: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 5: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $340000000)
Year 10: $310000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $360000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Key Considerations
- Legal implications for section 230 overhaul, potentially increasing litigation.
- Effects on free speech vs. moderation responsibilities for social media platforms.
- Cost of FCC developing best practices and the subsequent compliance costs for companies.
- Potential shift in operational strategies for large tech companies affecting users and local economies.