Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation
Abstract
[This paper is now published here: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2210666120. Please refer to and cite the published version. The preprint is not updated. ]When moderating content online, two key values may come into conflict: protecting freedom of expression and preventing harm. Robust rules based in part on how citizens think about these moral dilemmas are necessary to deal with the unprecedented scale and urgency of this conflict in a principled way. Yet little is known about people's judgments and preferences around content moderation. We examined such moral dilemmas in a conjoint survey experiment where respondents (N = 2,564) indicated whether they would remove problematic social media posts on election denial, anti-vaccination, Holocaust denial, and climate change denial and whether they would take punitive action against the accounts. Respondents were shown key information about the user and their post, as well as the consequences of the misinformation. The majority preferred quashing harmful misinformation over protecting free speech. Respondents were more likely to remove posts and suspend accounts if the consequences were severe and if it was a repeated offence. Features related to the account itself (the person behind the account, their partisanship, and number of followers) had little to no effect on respondents' decisions. Content moderation of harmful misinformation was a partisan issue: Across all four scenarios, Republicans were consistently less willing than Democrats or Independents to delete posts or penalize the accounts that posted them. Our results can inform the design of transparent rules of content moderation for human and algorithmic moderators.
Authors 7
-
Anastasia Kozyreva corresponding
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Affiliation as printed
Center for Adaptive Rationality , Max Planck Institute for Human Development , Berlin , Germany, 14195
Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany, 14195
-
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Affiliation as printed
Center for Adaptive Rationality , Max Planck Institute for Human Development , Berlin , Germany, 14195
Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany, 14195
-
The University of Western Australia · University of Bristol
Affiliation as printed
School of Psychological Science , University of Bristol , Bristol , United Kingdom, BS8 1QU
School of Psychological Sciences , University of Western Australia , Perth , Australia, 6009
School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom, BS8 1QU
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, 6009
-
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Affiliation as printed
Center for Adaptive Rationality , Max Planck Institute for Human Development , Berlin , Germany, 14195
Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany, 14195
-
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Affiliation as printed
Center for Adaptive Rationality , Max Planck Institute for Human Development , Berlin , Germany, 14195
Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany, 14195
-
Affiliation as printed
Center for Law and Digital Technologies , Leiden University , Leiden , Netherlands , 2311 ES
Center for Law and Digital Technologies, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands, 2311 ES
-
University of Exeter · Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Affiliation as printed
Center for Adaptive Rationality , Max Planck Institute for Human Development , Lentzeallee 94 , 14195 Berlin , Germany;
Department of Politics , University of Exeter , Exeter , United Kingdom , EX4 4PY
Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom, EX4 4PY
Cited by 20 stored of 21
20 results
No patents citing this paper on Lens.org (checked 2026-10-11).