Bill Overview
Title: Free Speech Defense Act
Description: This bill addresses issues relating to the federal government and social media. For example, the bill (1) terminates the Disinformation Governance Board; and (2) prohibits the federal government from encouraging a social media company to remove a user or label content as misinformation, with certain exceptions.
Sponsors: Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]
Target Audience
Population: People using social media platforms globally
Estimated Size: 300000000
- Social media platforms are used by billions of people globally who share and consume information.
- Any changes to the regulation of misinformation on these platforms affects the discourse and information flow experienced by their users.
- The bill impacts social media companies themselves, as it influences their content moderation policies globally.
- Individuals interested in freedom of speech issues and misinformation across the world, particularly activists, journalists, content creators, and NGOs, will be affected by changes to these governance structures.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy primarily consists of social media users in the United States. Given that there are approximately 300 million social media users in the U.S., the policy has the potential to significantly impact them.
- Key stakeholders include individuals who have an active interest in free speech and misinformation, such as journalists, activists, and content creators who regularly engage with the platform in a professional capacity.
- The policy's budget constraints necessitate that it focuses primarily on the direct effects of the legislation on user experience and federal engagement with social media companies, rather than expansive global changes.
- The policy might not directly result in significant financial outlays for individual users but will affect the informational landscape they interact with, thus impacting their perceptions of wellbeing.
- Content moderation and misinformation guidelines play a substantial role in shaping public discourse on these platforms, thereby influencing user trust and engagement levels. This can translate into tangible changes in self-reported wellbeing over time.
Simulated Interviews
journalist (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The termination of the Disinformation Governance Board seems like a double-edged sword. While it's important for free speech, misinformation is a big problem that needs managing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
content creator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might ease some pressure from content moderation policies that affect livelihoods by demonetizing content due to perceived misinformation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
social media company employee (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reduction in federal intervention might offer companies like ours more flexibility, but balancing misinformation will remain a challenge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
activist (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in safeguarding free speech online, crucial for maintaining open dialogue and activism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While free speech is important, misinformation is harmful, especially to impressionable minds. I'm concerned about the lack of oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's unclear if this policy will significantly change user experience, but less regulation might promote innovation in moderation technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
small business owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that unchecked misinformation could affect my business's reputation.
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 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
non-profit director (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act raises challenges for accurate journalism when social media can spread misinformation unchecked.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
public relations specialist (Boston, MA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act could alter how companies interact with users, possibly improving public perception over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
student (Denver, CO)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are intriguing from an academic perspective, analyzing real-world impacts on free speech.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $500000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $100000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary fiscal impact is from the administrative changes and the cessation of specific federal roles.
- Judicial challenges from enforcement and compliance issues may incur costs.
- Potential for significant legal battles or pushback from social media companies testing the limits of these prohibitions.