Bill Overview
Title: To prohibit the use of Federal funds to establish a Disinformation Governance Board.
Description: This bill prohibits the use of federal funds made available to the Department of Homeland Security to establish a Disinformation Governance Board.
Sponsors: Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]
Target Audience
Population: US citizens concerned with disinformation or government surveillance
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill aims to prohibit federal funding for a new board, meaning its impact is primarily preventative rather than direct on existing programs.
- The population most relevant to the effects of establishing a Disinformation Governance Board would be U.S. citizens as they are the ones potentially affected by DHS operations and federal fund allocations.
- Limiting or preventing such a board could indirectly affect individuals concerned with misinformation, including academics, media, tech companies, and the general public.
- Individuals involved in or affected by disinformation campaigns might have been stakeholders had the board been established to counter disinformation.
- No direct global implication as it pertains to U.S. federal funding and U.S. domestic policy.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly affects individuals concerned with government oversight on disinformation and misinformation campaigns, such as media, academia, civil rights advocates, tech companies, and the general public interested in these issues.
- The policy is preventative and does not directly create a new program or service. Its impact will be felt more as an absence of action, meaning those who are concerned about disinformation or government surveillance will feel relieved by its prohibition or anxious without further governance.
- People affected by this policy would have varying opinions based on their background and interest level in federal oversight of disinformation.
- Some individuals, such as civil rights advocates, may appreciate the prevention of additional government oversight, while others, particularly in media or academia, may have preferred the establishment of clearer guidelines from the proposed board.
Simulated Interviews
university professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I agree that unchecked misinformation is a significant issue, I'm relieved that there won't be additional government oversight that could creep into areas of free speech.
- It's a complex balance between mitigating misinformation and safeguarding personal freedoms; this policy makes me slightly more assured that surveillance won't increase unnecessarily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m concerned about the spread of misinformation and was hoping the board could provide clearer guidelines for platforms.
- Without the board, tech companies like mine are left to fend for ourselves in setting rules, which isn’t ideal.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
retired (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that not establishing a board means the government isn't taking disinformation seriously enough.
- Trust in domestic security efforts will erode without proactive measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
freelance journalist (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have mixed feelings. On one hand, leaving misinformation unchecked can be dangerous, but federal involvement could lead to censorship.
- I lean towards supporting this policy, as it prevents potential overreach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
civil rights lawyer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preventing this board is a step in preserving civil liberties against unnecessary government oversight.
- While misinformation is a concern, I’m not convinced a federal board is the right solution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
media consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not having a Disinformation Governance Board makes it harder to provide clients with clear, federally-backed guidance on handling misinformation.
- However, it prevents bureaucratic delays in implementing platform changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
PhD student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might stall my research framework that depends on government data, but it keeps Big Brother at bay.
- Mixed feelings: the board could have facilitated access to certain datasets, but I worry about overreach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
public relations manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy creates an uncertain landscape for NGOs combatting misinformation since it removes a potential ally in governance.
- Though worried about government surveillance, this board might have been a force for good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
content creator (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thankful this policy keeps government fingers out of information channels, allowing freedom of expression to breathe.
- The prospect of a Disinformation Governance Board felt like it could hit freedom of speech negatively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
healthcare administrator (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need clearer government policies to guide public health communications and this policy dampens those hopes.
- Without a board to provide oversight, myths and misconceptions will continue unchecked.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Preventing the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board avoids potential federal expenditure and redirection of DHS resources.
- The public discourse surrounding the regulation of disinformation may shift focus to existing initiatives.
- This policy might impact the political environment related to government surveillance and citizen freedoms.