Bill Overview
Title: PROTECT Act
Description: This bill addresses the online distribution of child sexual abuse materials and the nonconsensual online distribution of pornography, including by requiring platforms to (1) verify the identity and age of the uploader; (2) verify the identity, age, and consent of the participants; and (3) establish a mechanism for the removal of an image. The bill establishes criminal and civil penalties for violations.
Sponsors: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: People using online platforms affected by the PROTECT Act
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The global internet user population is estimated to be approximately 5 billion people.
- The bill impacts platforms and social media companies that host user-uploaded content, which operate globally.
- Internet users, especially those involved in the creation, sharing, or viewing of pornographic content, both consensual and nonconsensual, will be impacted.
- The legislation will affect individuals who are victims of nonconsensual pornography or child sexual abuse materials by providing them with mechanisms for removal and legal recourse.
- There are communities that actively seek to distribute illegal content who will be directly impacted by the restrictions and penalties.
Reasoning
- The PROTECT Act affects a broad range of internet users, especially those involved in adult content industries, as well as potential victims of online sexual exploitation.
- Platform operators in the U.S. will bear substantial compliance costs, influencing the operational dynamics of internet services.
- The wellbeing impact varies significantly across the population, with victims potentially experiencing substantial positive changes, while others may notice little to moderate effects.
- Given the budget constraints and the size of the targeted population, not everyone will experience the policy's effects directly or significantly.
Simulated Interviews
Content Creator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes my work a bit more difficult. The verification process adds extra steps.
- However, I understand the necessity to protect victims of abuse.
- There might be increased costs or slower processes due to compliance requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
IT Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy's intentions are good, but it's going to increase our workload significantly.
- We need to ensure all systems comply with the new regulations, potentially increasing operational costs significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Victim Advocate (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a significant step in the right direction for supporting victims.
- The ability to remove harmful images more easily will improve our clients' mental wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected, but it feels safer to share content online knowing protections are in place.
- There's a slight inconvenience with new verifications, but the trade-off is worth it.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act will lead to increased litigation and compliance work, good for my business but indicates larger regulatory challenges.
- It's a timely update needed in the legislation.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Campus Activist (Miami, FL)
Age: 19 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with the causes I advocate for, putting emphasis on online privacy and safety protection.
- There could be greater awareness among students about privacy with these protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Parent (Houston, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing there are stricter controls for harmful content is reassuring as a parent.
- It's important that platforms take responsibility for what is shared.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing these measures in our system is technically challenging but necessary.
- Balancing user experience with compliance will be crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Platform Moderator (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law gives us more tools to tackle harmful content, but it also means more work and potentially more stress.
- Ultimately, it's a positive change needed to address online exploitation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know more is being done to protect online spaces, though I'm not directly affected.
- I support efforts that create safer environments for everyone.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $1800000000 (Low: $1350000000, High: $2250000000)
Year 3: $1600000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $1500000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 10: $1300000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1600000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation may be challenging for small to medium-sized platforms due to the high costs of compliance.
- Collaboration across global technology companies is crucial, as these companies will need to invest significantly in verification technologies and content management systems.
- There is a significant societal impact due to the potential decrease in crime and exploitation, which aligns with public well-being objectives.