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.
翻译:本研究报告审视了社交媒体用户对使用全平台节制的偏好,与用户控制的、个性化的节制工具相比,他们倾向于使用全平台节制,以规范三类违反规范的内容----仇恨言论、性直观内容和暴力内容。通过对984名美国成年人的具有全国代表性的调查,我们探讨了第三人效应和支持言论自由对这项选择的影响。我们发现,人们认为对其他人的负面影响是负面预测的,而自由言论支持积极预测倾向于个人节制环境,而不是平台主导的节制。我们的调查结果显示,平台治理举措需要既考虑到违反规范的言论类别的实际和感知媒体影响,又考虑到提高用户满意度。我们的分析表明,用户并不认为个人节制工具是对他人言论自由的侵犯,而是将个人节制工具视为对其社交媒体支持力的更大手段。