Do users want platform moderation or individual control? Examining the role of third-person effects and free speech support in shaping moderation preferences
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2025
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.
BalkinJM (2017) Free speech in the algorithmic society: big data, private governance, and new school speech regulation. UCDL Review51: 1149–1209.
2.
BarnidgeMRojasH (2014) Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and political talk: expanding the corrective action hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research26(2): 135–156.
3.
BernhardUDohleM (2015) Corrective or confirmative actions? Political online participation as a consequence of presumed media influences in election campaigns. Journal of Information Technology & Politics12(3): 285–302.
4.
BollingerLC (2010) Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
BoxGEPTidwellPW (1962) Transformation of the independent variables. Technometrics4(4): 531–550.
6.
ChungSMoonS-I (2016) Is the third-person effect real? A critical examination of rationales, testing methods, and previous findings of the third-person effect on censorship attitudes. Human Communication Research42(2): 312–337.
7.
DavisonWP (1983) The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly47(1): 1–15.
8.
ErnalaSKBurkeMLeavittA, et al. (2020) How well do people report time spent on Facebook? An evaluation of established survey questions with recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 25–30April, pp. 1–14. New York: ACM.
9.
FoxJ (2015) Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
GillespieT (2017) Regulation of and by platforms. In: BurgessJPoellTMarwickA (eds) SAGE Handbook of Social Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 254–278.
11.
GuntherA (1991) What we think others think: cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research18(3): 355–372.
12.
GuntherAC (2006) Overrating the X-rating: the third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication45(1): 27–38.
13.
GuoLJohnsonBG (2020) Third-person effect and hate speech censorship on Facebook. Social Media + Society6(2): 2056305120923003.
14.
JangSMKimJK (2018) Third person effects of fake news: fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior80: 295–302.
15.
JhaverSApplingDSGilbertE, et al. (2019) “Did you suspect the post would be removed?”: understanding user reactions to content removals on Reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3(CSCW): 1–33.
16.
JhaverSChanLBruckmanA (2018) The view from the other side: the border between controversial speech and harassment on kotaku in action. First Monday23(2): fm.v23i2.8232.
17.
JhaverSChenQZKnaussD, et al. (2022) Designing word filter tools for creator-led comment moderation. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New Orleans, LA, 29April–5May, pp. 1–21. New York: ACM.
18.
JhaverSZhangAChenQZ, et al. (2023) Personalizing content moderation on social media: user perspectives on moderation choices, interface design, and labor. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7(CSCW): 1–33.
19.
KalchANaabTK (2017) Replying, disliking, flagging: how users engage with uncivil and impolite comments on news sites. Studies in Communication and Media 6(4): 395–419.
20.
KenskiKCoeKRainsSA (2020) Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: an examination of types and predictors. Communication Research47(6): 795–814.
21.
LambeJL (2002) Dimensions of censorship: reconceptualizing public willingness to censor. Communication Law and Policy7: 187–235.
22.
LeeFLF (2009) The prevention effect of third-person perception: a study on the perceived and actual influence of polls. Mass Communication and Society13(1): 87–110.
23.
LimJS (2017) The third-person effect of online advertising of cosmetic surgery: a path model for predicting restrictive versus corrective actions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94(4): 972–993.
24.
LivingstoneS (2013) Knowledge enhancement’: the risks and opportunities of evidence-based policy. In: O’Neill B, Staksrud E and Mclaughlin S (eds) Towards a Better Internet for Children: Policy Pillars, Players and Paradoxes. Sweden: Nordicom, Goteborg, pp. 93–109.
25.
LoV-hChangC (2006) Knowledge about the Gulf Wars: a theoretical model of learning from the news. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics11(3): 135–155.
NaabT (2012) The relevance of people’s attitudes towards freedom of expression in a changing media environment. ESSACHESS—Journal for Communication Studies5(1): 45–67.
28.
NaabTKKalchAMeitzTG (2018) Flagging uncivil user comments: effects of intervention information, type of victim, and response comments on bystander behavior. New Media & Society20(2): 777–795.
29.
NaabTKNaabTBrandmeierJ (2021) Uncivil user comments increase users’ intention to engage in corrective actions and their support for authoritative restrictive actions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly98(2): 566–588.
30.
PaterJAKimMKMynattED, et al. (2016) Characterizations of online harassment: comparing policies across social media platforms. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, 13–16November, pp. 369–374. New York: ACM.
31.
PazMAMontero-DíazJMoreno-DelgadoA (2020) Hate speech: a systematized review. SAGE Open10(4): 2158244020973022.
32.
RiedlMJNaabTKMasulloGM, et al. (2021) Who is responsible for interventions against problematic comments? Comparing user attitudes in Germany and the United States. Policy & Internet13: 433–451.
33.
RiedlMJWhippleKNWallaceR (2022) Antecedents of support for social media content moderation and platform regulation: the role of presumed effects on self and others. Information, Communication & Society25: 1632–1649.
34.
RobertsST (2019) Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
RojasH (2010) “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: how perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research22(3): 343–363.
36.
RojasHShahDVFaberRJ (1996) For the good of others: censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research8(2): 163–186.
37.
RugglesSFloodSGoekenR, et al. (2022) IPUMS USA: Version 12.0. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS.
38.
SchoenebeckSHaimsonOLNakamuraL (2021) Drawing from justice theories to support targets of online harassment. New Media & Society23: 1278–1300.
39.
SullivanJLPieresonJMarcusGE (1993) Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40.
SunYPanZShenL (2008) Understanding the third-person perception: evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication58(2): 280–300.
41.
WestSM (2018) Censored, suspended, shadowbanned: user interpretations of content moderation on social media platforms. New Media & Society20: 4366–4383.
42.
WilliamsMButlerMJurek-LoughreyA, et al. (2021) Offensive communications: exploring the challenges involved in policing social media. Contemporary Social Science16(2): 227–240.
43.
ZiegeleMNaabTKJostP (2020) Lonely together? Identifying the determinants of collective corrective action against uncivil comments. New Media & Society22(5): 731–751.
