A worldwide survey shows that most people reject the idea of unrestricted freedom of expression. Overall, people want harmful social media content, such as physical threats and defamation, to be restricted. These were the main results of a large-scale survey conducted by the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the University of Oxford in 10 countries in Europe, America, Africa, and Australia.
The issue of regulating social media has flared up again in recent months. Claiming to defend freedom of expression, some social media platforms have relaxed regulations intended to restrict discriminatory statements. In contrast, Australia has banned social media access for children under 16.
However, little attention has been paid to the opinions of actual social media users. To address this gap, a team of researchers at TUM and the University of Oxford surveyed over 13,000 people in six European countries, as well as the USA, Brazil, South Africa, and Australia. Participants answered questions about the conflicting objectives of freedom of expression and safeguarding against digital abuse and misinformation.
Most people (79%) believe that content encouraging violence should be removed, with the strongest approval (86%) recorded in Germany, Brazil, and Slovakia. Most US respondents still agree with this statement, but to a lesser extent (63%). Only 14% of respondents believe that threats should remain online so that users are aware. In addition, 17% think that users should be allowed to post potentially offensive content to target specific groups of people. The country with the highest level of support for this stance is the USA (29%), and support is lowest in Brazil (9%).
“Influential entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk have argued that free speech must precede content moderation in social media. The study shows that the majority of people in democracies want platforms that reduce hate speech and abuse. This applies even in the USA, a country with a long-standing commitment to freedom of speech in the broadest sense,” said Yannis Theocharis, Professor of Digital Governance at the Munich School of Politics and Public Policy at TUM and co-leader of the Content Moderation Lab of the TUM Think Tank.
“But the results also show that we do not necessarily have a universal consensus with regard to all specific trade-offs between freedom of expression and moderation. People’s beliefs strongly depend on cultural norms, political experiences and legal traditions in the various countries. This makes global regulation more difficult,” added Spyros Kosmidis, Professor of Politics at the University of Oxford and co-leader of the Content Moderation Lab of the TUM Think Tank.
Regarding who should be responsible for creating a safe online environment, there were some significant differences between countries. Some believe accountability rests with the platform operators, ranging between 39% in Germany, the UK, and Brazil and 29% in France, South Africa, and Greece. In contrast, for others, the responsibility lies with the government. Compared to 37% of German and French respondents, just 14% favour a government-led approach in Slovakia. Finally, some believe individual citizens should bear responsibility, ranging from 39% in Sweden to 17% in Germany. Looking at the results independently of the countries, 35% of respondents across all countries chose platform operators, 31% chose individual citizens, and 30% chose governments as the preferred responsible party.
About half of those surveyed think that exposure to rudeness, intolerance, or hate is unavoidable in social media. Most users (65%) expect aggressive comments when they express their ideas on social media. “We are noticing widespread resignation,” said Theocharis. “People obviously have the impression that despite all of the promises to deal with offensive content, nothing is improving. This acclimatisation effect is a huge problem because it is gradually undermining societal norms and normalising hate and violence.”
Despite all the problems, most participants believe that platforms can be venues for civilised discussion. Only 20% of those surveyed say it is sometimes necessary to be rude in social media to get one’s own opinion across.