Partisan conflict over content moderation is more than disagreement about facts

Author:

Appel Ruth E.1ORCID,Pan Jennifer1ORCID,Roberts Margaret E.2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

2. Department of Political Science and Halıcıoğlu Data Science Institute, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA.

Abstract

Social media companies have come under increasing pressure to remove misinformation from their platforms, but partisan disagreements over what should be removed have stymied efforts to deal with misinformation in the United States. Current explanations for these disagreements center on the “fact gap”—differences in perceptions about what is misinformation. We argue that partisan differences could also be due to “party promotion”—a desire to leave misinformation online that promotes one’s own party—or a “preference gap”—differences in internalized preferences about whether misinformation should be removed. Through an experiment where respondents are shown false headlines aligned with their own or the opposing party, we find some evidence of party promotion among Democrats and strong evidence of a preference gap between Democrats and Republicans. Even when Republicans agree that content is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed and more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship.

Publisher

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Subject

Multidisciplinary

Reference75 articles.

1. World Economic Forum “The global risks report 2023” (Tech. Rep. 18 World Economic Forum 2023).

2. Pew Research Center “Climate change remains top global threat across 19-country survey” (Tech. Rep. Pew Research Center 2022).

3. L. Silver “Americans see different global threats facing the country now than in March 2020” (Tech. Rep. Pew Research Center 2022).

4. D. E. Bambauer What Does the Day After Section 230 Reform Look Like? (Brookings Institution 2021).

5. T. Lorenz How the Biden Administration Let Right-Wing Attacks Derail Its Disinformation Efforts (The Washington Post 2022).

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Toxic Speech and Limited Demand for Content Moderation on Social Media;American Political Science Review;2024-01-24

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3