Do users want platform moderation or individual control? Examining the role of third-person effects and free speech support in shaping moderation preferences

This study examines social media users' preferences for the use of platform-wide moderation in comparison to user-controlled, personalized moderation tools to regulate three categories of norm-violating content-hate speech, sexually explicit content, and violent content. Via a nationally representative survey of 984 US adults, we explore the influence of third-person effects and support for freedom of expression on this choice. We find that perceived negative effects on others negatively predict while free speech support positively predicts a preference for having personal moderation settings over platform-directed moderation for regulating each speech category. Our findings show that platform governance initiatives need to account for both actual and perceived media effects of norm-violating speech categories to increase user satisfaction. Our analysis also suggests that users do not view personal moderation tools as an infringement on others' free speech but as a means to assert greater agency over their social media feeds.

Automated summary

This study examines social media users' preferences for platform-wide moderation and user-controlled, personalized moderation tools to regulate norm-violating content. The study finds that preference for personal moderation settings is influenced by perceived negative effects on others and support for freedom of expression.