Replication Data for: Toxic Speech and Limited Demand for Content Moderation on Social Media

When is speech on social media toxic enough to warrant content moderation? Platforms impose limits on what can be posted online, but also rely on users' reports of potentially harmful content. Yet, we know little about what users consider inadmissible to public discourse and what measures they wish to see implemented. Building on past work, we conceptualize three variants of toxic speech: incivility, intolerance, and violent threats. We present results from two studies with pre-registered randomized experiments (Study 1, N=5130; Study 2, N=3734) to examine how these variants causally affect users' content moderation preferences. We find that while both the severity of toxicity and the target of the attack matter, the demand for content moderation of toxic speech is limited. We discuss implications for the study of toxicity and content moderation as an emerging area of research in political science with critical implications for platforms, policymakers, and democracy more broadly.社交媒体上的言论需达到何种毒性程度，才应当触发内容审核机制？各大平台一方面对线上发布内容设置了合规边界，另一方面也依托用户举报来识别潜在有害内容。然而，学界对于用户认为哪些内容不应纳入公共话语范畴，以及用户期望推行何种审核举措，仍缺乏充分认知。本研究在既往研究基础上，将毒性言论划分为三种亚型：不文明言论、不容异见言论与暴力威胁言论。本研究通过两项预先注册的随机实验（研究1：N=5130；研究2：N=3734）开展实证分析，旨在考察这三类毒性言论如何从因果层面影响用户的内容审核偏好。研究结果表明，尽管毒性严重程度与攻击目标均会对用户偏好产生影响，但用户针对毒性言论提出内容审核的诉求仍相对有限。本研究还探讨了毒性言论与内容审核研究的学术意义：该领域作为政治学的新兴研究方向，对平台运营、政策制定乃至更广泛的民主建设均具有关键启示价值。