Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
In online content moderation, 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 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 US respondents ( N = 2, 564) indicated whether they would remove problematic social media posts on election denial, antivaccination, 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 reluctant to suspend accounts than to remove posts and more likely to do either if the harmful consequences of the misinformation were severe or if sharing it was a repeated offense. 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 remove posts or penalize the accounts that posted them. Our results can inform the design of transparent rules for content moderation of harmful misinformation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People across the political spectrum believe that misinformation and hate speech should be restricted based on severity, regardless of the target or topic.
“People across the political spectrum believe that misinformation and hate speech should be restricted based on severity, regardless of the target or topic (Kozyreva et al. 2023, Rasmussen 2022, Rathje et al. 2023).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Kozyreva et al. 2023
The Discussion reports that US respondents were more willing to restrict misinformation as the severity of its consequences increased, and that the account holder’s characteristics had little effect. But it explicitly says the misinformation topic mattered, with climate-change denial acted on less often than Holocaust or election denial. This paper studies misinformation moderation, not hate-speech restrictions or whether the target of hate speech affects decisions. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPeople on the political left are more supportive of regulating social media platforms.
“In general, people on the political left are more supportive of regulating social media platforms (Kozyreva et al. 2023, Rasmussen 2022), reflecting liberals' general tendency to be more supportive, and conservatives' tendency to more opposing, of regulatory policies (e.g., Grossman & Hopkins 2016).”
From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Kozyreva et al. 2023
The Discussion reports that Democrats preferred preventing dangerous falsehoods across four content-moderation scenarios, while Republicans preferred free speech and imposed fewer restrictions. That supports a partisan difference in attitudes toward moderating online misinformation, but the paper limits its conclusions to US respondents and does not establish a general preference for regulating social media platforms across issues. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 32 · Cited by 166
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- [20]C. R. Sunstein, Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception (Oxford University Press, 2021).
- [25]J. S. Mill, On Liberty (Cambridge University Press, 1859/2011).
- [28]G. King, J. Pan, M. E. Roberts, Reverse-engineering censorship in China: Randomized experimentation and participant observation. Science 345, 1251722 (2014). 25146296
- [35]J. D. Greene, R. B. Sommerville, L. E. Nystrom, J. M. Darley, J. D. Cohen, An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293, 2105– 2108 (2001). 11557895
- [37]J. F. Bonnefon, A. Shariff, I. Rahwan, The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352, 1573– 1576 (2016). 27339987
- [38]E. Awad, Computational ethics. Trends Cognit. Sci. 26, 388– 405 (2022). 35365430
- [40]P. Foot, The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Rev. 5, 5– 15 (1967).
- [41]K. Bansak, J. Hainmueller, D. J. Hopkins, T. Yamamoto, Conjoint Survey Experiments, J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, Eds. (Cambridge University Press, 2021), vol. 19, pp. 19–41.
- [47]J. Graham et al., Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism, P. Devine, A. Plant, Eds. (Academic Press, 2013), vol. 47, pp. 55–130.
- [48]J. Rasmussen, When Do the Public Support Hate Speech Restrictions? Symmetries and Asymmetries across Partisans in Denmark and the United States. psyarxiv [Preprint] (2022). https://psyarxiv.com/j4nuc (Accessed 25 June 2022).
- [53]A. Enders et al., Are Republicans and conservatives more likely to believe conspiracy theories? Polit. Behav. (2022). PMC9307120 35909894
- [61]A. Murray, The Regulation of Cyberspace: Control in the Online Environment (Routledge-Cavendish, 2007).
- [62]G. Blair, J. Cooper, A. Coppock, M. Humphreys, Declaring and diagnosing research designs. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 113, 838– 859 (2019). 32855557 PMC7449569
- Authors
- Kozyreva, A., Herzog, S. M., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Leiser, M., & Reifler, J.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Leiden University (NL)
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kozyreva, Anastasia
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2023-02-07
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e2210666120-e2210666120
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC9963596
- OpenAlex
- W4319334192
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 69.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Volkswagen Foundation (N/A)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Keywords
- content moderation, freedom of expression, ethical dilemmas, social media, account suspension, partisanship, political polarization, Holocaust denial, climate change denial, public preferences
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Emotions, Humans, Morals, Politics, Speech, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
