To reduce the spread of misinformation, social media platforms may take enforcement actions against offending content, such as adding informational warning labels, reducing distribution, or removing content entirely. However, both their actions and their inactions have been controversial and plagued by allegations of partisan bias. When it comes to specific content items, surprisingly little is known about what ordinary people want the platforms to do. We provide empirical evidence about a politically balanced panel of lay raters' preferences for three potential platform actions on 368 news articles. Our results confirm that on many articles there is a lack of consensus on which actions to take. We find a clear hierarchy of perceived severity of actions with a majority of raters wanting informational labels on the most articles and removal on the fewest. There was no partisan difference in terms of how many articles deserve platform actions but conservatives did prefer somewhat more action on content from liberal sources, and vice versa. We also find that judgments about two holistic properties, misleadingness and harm, could serve as an effective proxy to determine what actions would be approved by a majority of raters.

翻译：为减少错误信息的传播，社交媒体平台可对违规内容采取执法行动，例如添加信息性警告标签、减少分发或完全移除内容。然而，平台的行为及其不作为均引发争议，并因党派偏见的指控而备受诟病。针对具体内容条目，普通民众希望平台采取何种行动却鲜为人知。我们基于368篇新闻文章，从政治立场平衡的普通评估者小组出发，提供了关于其对三种潜在平台行动偏好的实证证据。结果证实，多数文章对这些行动应采取何种措施缺乏共识。我们观察到行动严重程度的清晰层级：多数评估者希望在最多文章中添加信息标签，而最少文章中被移除。在应被采取平台行动的文章数量上，党派差异并不显著；但保守派确实更倾向于对自由派来源的内容采取较多行动，反之亦然。此外，我们发现对两个整体属性（误导性与危害性）的判断，可有效替代大多数评估者所认可的具体行动。