Social media platforms increasingly offer users control over their feeds, promising to reduce toxic discourse. This study tests how the mere offer of algorithmic control shapes user experiences. Respondents evaluated identical posts from a fictional platform, with half given the option to filter out toxic political content. Those given this choice reported greater platform satisfaction. However, those who opted for filtering rated content as more hostile than similar respondents who were not offered the choice. A follow-up experiment showed that exposure to only positive content did not reduce hostility ratings; it heightened them compared to exposure to both positive and negative content. These findings challenge the assumption that user autonomy will improve content experiences. Instead, algorithmic choice raises expectations, prompting users to scrutinize content more critically or attempt to “train” the algorithm to align with their preferences. Platforms must consider how expectations, not just content exposure, shape online experiences.
AndersonM (2024) Americans’ Views of Technology Companies. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
3.
AuxierB (2020) 64% of Americans Say Social Media Have a Mostly Negative Effect on the Way Things Are Going in the U.S Today. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
4.
BaileyMAHopkinsDJRogersT (2016) Unresponsive and unpersuaded: the unintended consequences of a voter persuasion effort. Political Behavior38: 713–746.
BradyWJMcLoughlinKDoanTN, et al. (2021) How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances7(33): eabe5641.
BucherT (2017) The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society20(1): 30–44.
10.
ChengJBernsteinMDanescu-Niculescu-MizilC, et al. (2017) Anyone can become a troll: causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland, OR, 8–12, February, pp. 1217–1230. New York: ACM.
EslamiMKarahaliosKSandvigC, et al. (2016) First I “like” it, then I hide it: folk theories of social feeds. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 7–12 May, pp. 2371–2382. New York: ACM.
16.
EslamiMRickmanAVaccaroK, et al. (2015) ‘I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to [her]’: reasoning about invisible algorithms in news feeds. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–23 April, pp. 153–162. New York: ACM.
17.
GerrardY (2018) Beyond the hashtag: circumventing content moderation on social media. New Media & Society20(12): 4492–4511.
18.
GorwaRBinnsRKatzenbachC (2020) Algorithmic content moderation: technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society. Epub ahead of print 28 February. DOI: 10.1177/2053951719897945.
19.
HaimsonOLDelmonacoDNieP, et al. (2021) Disproportionate removals and differing content moderation experiences for conservative, transgender, and Black social media users: marginalization and moderation gray areas. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW): 1–35.
JhaverSZhangAX (2023) Do users want platform moderation or individual control? Examining the role of third-person effects and free speech support in shaping moderation preferences. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 19 December. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231217993.
23.
JhaverSZhangAQChanQZ, 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(CSCW2): 1–33.
24.
KnijnenburgBPBostandjievSO’DonovanJ, et al. (2012) Inspectability and control in social recommenders. In: Proceedings of the sixth ACM conference on recommender systems, Dublin, 9–13 September, p. 43. New York: ACM.
25.
LangerEJ (1975) The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology32: 311–328.
26.
LangerEJRodinJ (1976) The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology34(2): 191–198.
27.
McNeeSMLamSKKonstanJA, et al. (2003) Interfaces for eliciting new user preferences in recommender systems. In: BrusilovskyPCorbettAde RosisF (eds) User Modeling 2003. Berlin: Springer, pp. 178–187.
NanzAMatthesJ (2022) Democratic consequences of incidental exposure to political information: a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication72(3): 345–373.
30.
PapacharissiZ (2008) The virtual sphere 2.0: the internet, the public sphere, and beyond. In: ChadwickAHowardPN (eds) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge.
31.
PersilyNTuckerJA (2020) Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
RainieLFunkCAndersonM, et al. (2022) AI and Human Enhancement: Americans’ Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
33.
RathjeSRobertsonCBradyWJ, et al. (2024) People think that social media platforms do (but should not) amplify divisive content. Perspectives on Psychological Science19(5): 781–795.
34.
RathjeSVan BavelJJvan der LindenS (2021) Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(26): e2024292118.
35.
ReynoldsGH (2007) An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths. Nashville, TN: Nelson Current.
SeaverN (2019) Knowing algorithms. In: VertesiJRibesDDiSalvoC, et al. (eds) DigitalSTS: A Field Guide for Science & Technology Studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Van DijckJPoellTDe WaalM (2018) The Platform Society, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
XiaoYBenbasatI (2007) E-commerce product recommendation agents: use, characteristics, and impact. MIS Quarterly31(1): 137–209.
