Blame and obligation: The importance of libertarianism and political orientation in the public assessment of disinformation in the United States

Abstract

AbstractDisinformation concerns have heightened the importance of regulating content and speech in digital communication environments. Perceived risks have led to widespread public support for stricter control measures, even at the expense of individual speech rights. To better understand these preferences in the US context, we investigate public attitudes regarding blame for and obligation to address digital disinformation by drawing on political ideology, libertarian values, trust in societal actors, and issue salience. A manual content analysis of open‐ended survey responses in combination with an issue salience experiment shows that political orientation and trust in actors primarily drive blame attribution, while libertarianism predominantly informs whose obligation it is to stop the spread. Additionally, enhancing the salience of specific aspects of the issue can influence people's assessments of blame and obligation. Our findings reveal a range of attributions, underlining the need for careful balance in regulatory interventions. Additionally, we expose a gap in previous literature by demonstrating libertarianism's unique role vis‐à‐vis political orientation in the context of regulating content and speech in digital communication environments.