  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.
