Bill Overview
Title: Defund the Ministry of Truth Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for the establishment or operation of the Disinformation Governance Board in the Department of Homeland Security.
Sponsors: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY]
Target Audience
Population: People with access to digital media and interested in disinformation management
Estimated Size: 180000000
- The bill seeks to defund the Disinformation Governance Board, a government body in the United States.
- This affects individuals and organizations involved in disinformation vigilance in the US, who rely on the governance board for coordination and resources.
- Citizens concerned with online and digital privacy as well as those involved in the promotion of accurate information could be impacted.
- Individuals relying on the board to counter misinformation may experience less governmental support and oversight.
- Digital rights activists and advocacy groups will have their operations influenced as federal support is removed.
Reasoning
- Given that the Disinformation Governance Board aims to address misinformation and disinformation in the U.S., the people directly impacted are those who work within the board or collaborate closely with it, media and technology stakeholders, digital rights activists, and consumers of news media.
- The policy focuses on defunding the board which may impact the operations of digital rights and media advocacy groups which use the board as a resource.
- Considering the large American digital media-consuming population, the direct impact is limited to a specific group actively engaged with disinformation management.
- The budget allocated to the board being defunded can provide insight into scope limitations; its removal might adversely affect advocacy efforts and governmental initiatives reliant on it.
Simulated Interviews
Digital Policy Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think defunding the board might backfire against efforts to curb misinformation.
- The board serves as a hub for coordinating initiatives to counter misinformation. Without it, those efforts may be fragmented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Journalist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about losing an important ally in our fight against misinformation.
- The board helps establish guidelines and provides a centralized approach to disinformation threats.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Digital Rights Advocate (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Defunding the board removes crucial oversight that helps maintain digital integrity.
- The centralization of efforts against disinformation is key in amplifying voices like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Tech Company Executive (Austin, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This move could disrupt partnerships we have set up with the board.
- The board plays an essential role as a bridge between tech companies and the government.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Federal Employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's disappointing to see resources being pulled from an entity so pivotal to our work.
- This affects not only jobs but also the effectiveness of policies against misinformation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Media Company Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy change is alarming given the societal risks posed by unchecked misinformation.
- Losing the board might mean having to increase our own efforts and resources to manage these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
College Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about future opportunities within government sectors working on disinformation.
- The discontinuation diminishes potential learning and development avenues.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Social Media Content Moderator (Boston, MA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My job is reliant on partnerships and guidance from entities like the Disinformation Governance Board.
- This change represents a potential setback in our coordinated efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The move to defund seems shortsighted given the challenges posed by misinformation.
- The board's guidelines have been instrumental to my company's recent projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
NGO Coordinator (Denver, CO)
Age: 47 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear defunding will stall many ongoing campaigns that depend upon the board.
- It's a step back in creating an informed and discerning public.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The main function of the Disinformation Governance Board was reportedly to coordinate response strategies against misinformation, raising concerns about government overreach that prompted this bill.
- Cost projections assume accurate past budget allocations to DGB or similar entities within DHS.
- Potential cost savings depend on DGB's operational overlap with other active DHS programs, which might pick up related tasks at additional costs.
- The externalities of unmanaged disinformation might lead to higher social and economic costs, which are not directly captured in the savings estimate.