Do Users Want Platform Moderation or Individual Control? Examining the Role of Third-Person Effects and Free Speech Support in Shaping Moderation Preferences

TL;DR

This study investigates social media users' preferences for platform-wide versus user-controlled moderation, highlighting the roles of third-person effects and free speech support in shaping these preferences through a nationally representative survey.

Contribution

It provides new insights into how perceived effects and free speech attitudes influence user moderation preferences, informing platform governance strategies.

Findings

Perceived negative effects reduce preference for platform moderation.

Support for free speech increases preference for personal moderation.

Users see personal tools as enhancing agency, not infringing on others' free speech.

Abstract

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 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.