# Do Users Want Platform Moderation or Individual Control? Examining the Role of Third-Person Effects and Free Speech Support in Shaping Moderation Preferences

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.02208 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.02208/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 5 Jan 2023.

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Value Alignment of Social Media Ranking Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.14434/) (2025)
- [IYKYK (But AI Doesn't): Automated Content Moderation Does Not Capture Communities' Heterogeneous Attitudes Towards Reclaimed Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16654/) (2026)
- [Beyond Effectiveness: A Multi-Criteria Framework for Comparing Practical Socio-Technical Interventions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.20649/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.