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.

翻译：本研究考察社交媒体用户在规范违规内容（仇恨言论、色情内容及暴力内容）的治理中，对平台全域审核与用户自主个性化审核工具的偏好差异。通过对984名美国成年人进行全国代表性调查，我们探究了第三方效应及言论自由支持对该选择的影响。研究发现：在各类言论治理中，感知他人负面效应负向预测用户对个人审核设置相对于平台主导审核的偏好，而言论自由支持则正向预测该偏好。研究结果表明，平台治理措施需兼顾规范违规言论的实际与感知媒介效应，方能提升用户满意度。分析还揭示，用户并不将个性化审核工具视为对他人言论自由的侵犯，而是将其视为增强对自身社交媒体信息流掌控权的手段。