Public support for misinformation interventions depends on perceived fairness, effectiveness, and intrusiveness

TL;DR

This study investigates factors influencing public support for misinformation interventions, highlighting fairness, effectiveness, and intrusiveness as key determinants, with support varying across demographics and intervention types.

Contribution

It identifies the main factors affecting public support for misinformation interventions and compares support levels for different intervention types and demographic groups.

Findings

Fairness is the most important factor for support.

Labeling and fact-checking are more supported than content removal.

Support varies by political affiliation and gender.

Abstract

The proliferation of misinformation on social media has concerning possible consequences, such as the degradation of democratic norms. While recent research on countering misinformation has largely focused on analyzing the effectiveness of interventions, the factors associated with public support for these interventions have received little attention. We asked 1,010 American social media users to rate their support for and perceptions of ten misinformation interventions implemented by the government or social media companies. Our results indicate that the perceived fairness of the intervention is the most important factor in determining support, followed by the perceived effectiveness of that intervention and then the intrusiveness. Interventions that supported user agency and transparency, such as labeling content or fact-checking ads, were more popular than those that involved moderating or removing content or accounts. We found some demographic differences in support levels, with Democrats and women supporting interventions more and finding them more fair, more effective, and less intrusive than Republicans and men, respectively. It is critical to understand which interventions are supported and why, as public opinion can play a key role in the rollout and effectiveness of policies.