Beginning in 2011, Gallup has found that Americans had much more favorable views of the computer and internet industries than of other business industries, such as banking and oil and gas. However, positive views of the technology world have fallen considerably since 2018. Today, Americans view the internet industry less favorably than the highly regulated banking industry.

Americans believe that social media has been good for them personally (67%) but worry about its impact on society. Liberals are most likely to believe that social media has been personally beneficial, with 72% of strong liberals, 73% of liberals, 69% of moderates, 61% of conservatives, and 56% of strong conservatives agreeing.

However, a majority (58%) of Americans say that social media has been bad for society as a whole. Interestingly, only staunch liberals say that social media is good for society (52%), while 52% of liberals, 57% of moderates, 67% of conservatives, and 67% of strong conservatives say it is bad.

Strong liberals are nearly three times more likely than strong conservatives to say that they have reported another user to a social media company for sharing offensive content or false information. This behavior is highly tied to political ideology. Among social media users, 65% of strong liberals, 44% of moderate liberals, 32% of moderates, 21% of moderate conservatives, and 24% of strong conservatives have done this.

We find a similar pattern for blocking or “unfriending” people over their posts about politics or science. Eight in 10 strong liberals (80%) have done this, compared to 68% of moderate liberals, 48% of moderates, 44% of moderate conservatives, and 46% of strong conservatives. 

This strong ideological trend continues even if we constrain the results among those who use social media several times a day. Among very frequent social media users: strong liberals (72%) are about 2.5 times more likely than strong conservatives (30%) to have reported another person because of what they posted. Similarly, when it comes to blocking people, strong liberals (83%) are 30 points more likely than strong conservatives (53%) to have done this.

Among social media users, more than a third (35%) of strong conservatives say they’ve had a post they shared on a social networking site reported or removed by the company compared to 20% of strong liberals. Including the share who personally have had content penalized or know someone who has, this share rises to 58% of strong conservatives compared to 44% of strong liberals. Strong conservatives are also more likely to have had their accounts suspended (19%) compared to strong liberals (12%). Altogether, conservatives are more likely than liberals to have personal or near personal experience of being penalized by social media companies for the content they’ve posted to their accounts.

Black and white Americans are slightly more likely to report that their posts have been penalized than Latino Americans and Asian Americans. A fifth of both black (20%) and white (20%) Americans report having a post or article penalized, whereas 14% of Latino and Asian Americans say the same. When combining this with respondents who know someone who has had a post penalized, the shares rise to 52% of white Americans, 41% of black Americans, and 33% of Latino and Asian Americans.

Taken together, these results show that strong liberals are more likely to report other users’ posts, and strong conservatives are slightly more likely to have their posts penalized. More reports from strong liberals might mean that social media company reporting processes could be biased against posts and articles from strong conservatives. However, without more information it is unclear whether strong conservatives are more likely to break social media platforms’ rules or whether the discrepancy in reporting and penalization suggest an ideological bias on the platforms.

Three-fourths of Americans (75%) say they don’t trust social media companies to make fair decisions about what information is allowed to be posted on their platforms. This view is shared by all ideological groups, although conservatives are more likely to distrust social media companies to be fair in their content moderation. Social media companies are distrusted by 72% of staunch liberals, 59% of liberals, 68% of moderates, 90% of conservatives, and 88% of strong conservatives.

However, ideological groups disagree on whether social media companies have enough rules on what is allowed to be posted and whether their content monitoring goes far enough. This suggests that, while people agree that they don’t trust social media companies to make good moderation decisions, the reasoning behind this view differs depending on ideological perspective. Whereas 68% of strong liberals believe that Facebook is not going far enough when monitoring content, 80% of strong conservatives say it is going too far. Similarly, 43% of strong liberals say social media sites have an appropriate amount of rules about what can be posted and 43% say there are not enough rules. But 72% of strong conservatives say social media companies have too many rules. Thus, the results suggest that staunch liberals are concerned that social media companies either need more restrictions on what can be posted or need to better enforce their restrictions, while strong conservatives believe that the platforms are too overbearing and have too many restrictions.

A majority of Americans (58%) say that social media sites should use the First Amendment as the standard for their content moderation decisions. Partisans disagree, with 82% of Republicans and 60% of independents supporting the use of the First Amendment and 64% of Democrats saying companies should set their own rules.

However, in practice, Americans don’t support leaving up posts that might be offensive or provide false information, even if those posts contain speech protected by the First Amendment. When asked about hypothetical posts, majorities supported placing warning labels, reducing the number of users who can see the post, removing the post, or suspending the poster’s account.

Only small minorities of Americans say they would leave up and do nothing to posts that share pornography (7%); recommend that people drink bleach to treat COVID-19 (10%); use racial slurs (16%); call gays and lesbians vulgar names (17%); say that the Holocaust did not occur (19%); call women vulgar names (20%); and say that violence is the only way to end white supremacy (21%). Slightly larger minorities say that nothing should be done with posts that say Israel doesn’t have the right to exist (28%); say that the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than that of African Americans and Hispanics (33%); say that children should not receive routine vaccinations for diseases like measles and mumps (34%); say that white people are disgusting (35%); share videos of American flag burnings (37%); say that transgender people have a mental disorder (38%); say that the COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous (41%); say that the COVID-19 vaccine has adverse side effects (41%); or say that American institutions are systemically racist (42%). Close to half say that nothing should be done with posts that say climate change is not happening (44%); say that voter fraud is common in the United States (44%); say that masks don’t work (45%); say that we should abolish and defund the police 46%; posts that don’t use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns (48%); or say that all illegal immigrants should be deported (50%). Nevertheless, each of these hypothetical posts would be permitted under a First Amendment standard.

In general, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support leaving up posts without any warnings. For instance, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to support allowing people to say the following things without penalty on social media: saying voter fraud is common in the United States (72% vs. 10%); masks don’t work (70% vs. 12%); climate change is not happening (71% vs. 16%); the COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous (65% vs. 15%); transgender people have a mental disorder (62% vs. 12%); or the COVID-19 vaccine has adverse side effects (60% vs. 16%). However, large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats would penalize posts that share pornography (92% vs. 95%) or recommend drinking bleach to treat COVID-19 (86% vs. 97%).

Only minorities of Democrats would support leaving any of these hypothetical posts up without any sort of action by the social media platforms. The highest support for leaving posts alone is for those that say we should defund the police (45%); say that all American institutions are racist (40%); posts where the user will not use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns (34%); and shares videos of American flag burnings (34%).

Democrats’ responses align with their view that social media companies should not use the First Amendment as their standard for what content to moderate. But while Republicans support use of the First Amendment in theory, when asked about these hypothetical posts they opposed leaving many kinds of posts up without any action to moderate that content by the platforms. Nevertheless, Republicans tended to be more permissive than Democrats in their treatment of these posts, even those we’d expect to offend conservative sensibilities. It should be noted, however, that because the survey asks about hypothetical posts it may bias responses toward some sort of action by social media companies as opposed to leaving the post as is.

A minority (30%) of Americans are very or somewhat concerned that something they post on social media will cause problems for them at work or school. Partisans agree, with 33% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans saying they are concerned.

However, while partisans share the same level of concern, they disagree on whether employees should face penalties at work for their personal social media activity. A slight majority (51%) of Americans say that employers should not discipline employees for controversial or offensive posts on their social media accounts. However, a large majority of Democrats (70%) support disciplining employees for their posts, whereas a majority of both independents (54%) and Republicans (68%) say employees should not face repercussions at work.

In line with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, two-thirds (67%) of Americans do not think that people should be allowed to sue social media companies for what users of the platforms choose to say or share.

There are not significant partisan differences: 62% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans say people should not be able to sue Facebook and Twitter for the content their users post.

A majority of Americans (63%) say that social media companies should remove false or misleading information from their sites. When asked how companies should deal with false information, less than half (38%) would outright ban it from those sites. Instead, 34% would add a label, 6% would reduce how many people can see the posts in their newsfeeds, such as through using computer algorithms, and 22% would simply do nothing and let the post remain on the site. 

Putting these data together, we find that a majority (56%) would not actually remove or reduce the false or misleading information from social media platforms but rather would add a warning label (34%) or simply leave it be (22%).

There are considerable partisan differences in approach. Majorities of Democrats (58%) would completely remove false or misleading information shared to social media, compared to 33% of independents and 20% of Republicans. Instead, majorities of independents (61%) and Republicans (81%) would not reduce the article’s circulation. Instead, they would add a warning label (35%, 39%) or leave the post as is (25%, 37%).

A problem for social media companies is that Americans can’t agree what exactly is “false or misleading information.” The survey presented a variety of statements that people have said, or could say, on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and asked whether those statements are true, false, or up for debate. The results show that Democrats and Republicans agree about certain statements that are clearly false: 93% of Democrats and 92% of Republicans agree that “Drinking bleach should be used to treat COVID-19” is “definitely false.” However, in general, partisans disagree on whether controversial political and scientific questions are true, false, or up for debate. Americans’ inability to agree on what constitutes misinformation makes it difficult for social media companies to police misinformation on their platforms.

For instance, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say that the following are “definitely” false information:

• the 2020 election was stolen (79% vs. 8%)
• masks don’t work (80% vs. 16%)
• climate change isn’t happening (77% vs. 14%)
• Democrats changed the vote tallies in 2020 to help Joe Biden win (76% vs. 12%)
• COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous (63% vs. 12%)
• children should not have to wear masks in school (48% vs. 11%)
• Hunter Biden sold access to his father Joe Biden to a foreign company (43% vs. 4%)

On the other hand, Republicans are more likely than Democrats say that the following are “definitely” false information:

• the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change (64% vs. 31%)
• Russia changed the vote tallies in 2016 to help Donald Trump win (53% vs. 20%)
• Women are paid 70 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men (18% vs. 6%)
• COVID-19 vaccines have no risks (38% vs. 30%)

These results suggest that social media companies will face difficulties if they try to adjudicate partisan conflict over what is true or false. While Americans widely agree that certain information is clearly false, such as whether drinking bleach can treat COVID-19, other political debates are more ambiguous.

A majority (54%) of Americans are more concerned that social media companies will censor truthful or legitimate debate, while 46% are more concerned that social media companies won’t do enough to stop the spread of false or misleading information.

All content moderation comes with mistakes. If social media companies ramp up efforts to remove false or misleading content from their sites they are also likely to delete true information and legitimate debate. Similarly, if social media made more efforts to protect truth and freedom of expression, more misinformation would spread. These data suggest that Americans would rather have social media companies allow misinformation to spread than to have them accidentally restrict truthful information by a margin of 54% to 46%.

But partisans feel very differently. A majority of Democrats (69%) would rather curb the spread of misinformation, even if that means at times censoring the truth. Conversely, majorities of independents (60%) and Republicans (78%) would rather allow some misinformation to spread rather than to censor truthful information and legitimate debate.

Although a majority of Americans are concerned about censoring legitimate debate, most (64%) do support social media companies like Facebook fact-checking information that their users post, while 36% oppose. A plurality of Americans (46%) think that third-party fact-checkers should be enlisted for this purpose, while 11% think the social media companies should decide what is false information and only 5% think that the government should decide. This is consistent with Facebook’s policy of working with outside fact-checkers.

Partisans strongly disagree that social media companies should fact-check posts: 90% of Democrats and 60% of independents favor, while 62% of Republicans oppose. Democrats (63%) believe that third-party fact-checkers should decide what is false information instead of legitimate debate, while Republicans (60%) say that neither social media companies, third-party fact-checkers, nor the government should decide. However, if forced to choose between the three, Republicans would likely prefer third-party fact-checkers being responsible for deciding what is false information: 29% said third-party fact-checkers should make these decisions, as opposed to 7% who said social media companies and 4% who said government should be responsible.

Although Americans are divided about who should conduct fact-checking for social media companies, a plurality thinks that a third-party fact-checker (46%) should do this. Another 11% think that social media companies should do it themselves, 5% say the government should, and 38% say that none of these should be fact-checking.

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of Americans believe that Facebook’s fact-checkers allow their own political opinions to influence their analysis, while only 37% believe these fact-checkers are fair and objective.

Republicans (82%) are far more likely than Democrats (43%) to believe that social media fact-checkers allow their own personal political opinions to affect their judgments. This may contribute to why Republicans are much more likely to oppose social media companies fact-checking content in the first place.

Most Americans say Facebook fact-checkers should not get to judge themselves. When someone appeals the decision of a fact-checker, 85% of Americans think a different fact-checker should decide if the original decision was correct. However, currently the same fact-checker who initially made a decision that a post was false or misleading gets to decide if their own decision was, in fact, correct or not. Americans seem to believe this violates procedural fairness.

Americans across the political spectrum agree, with 88% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats saying that a different fact-checker should determine appeals. This suggests that, while Republicans and Democrats disagree on whether Facebook should fact-check posts and whether fact-checkers are politically biased, there is a nearly universal agreement that it is not fair for a fact-checker to be tasked with reviewing their own decisions.

Americans are worried about the power that social media companies have over the news people are exposed to, the outcome of elections, and their general influence over politics and society. A majority (65%) of Americans think that social media platforms exert too much influence on what political news people read. Republicans are more likely to say that social media has too much influence over the news people read. While nearly three-fourths (74%) of Republicans agree, a slim majority (54%) of Democrats also think that social media platforms have too much influence on what people read.

A majority (63%) of Americans also say that social media companies have too much influence over the outcome of national elections. Again, Republicans are more likely to agree, with 72% saying that social media has too much influence over elections, compared to 54% of Democrats.

Three-fourths (75%) of Americans agree that employees at social media companies allow their own political opinions to influence how they write and enforce rules on what users can say and share on their platforms. Majorities of both Republicans (86%) and Democrats (66%) agree, but Republicans are more likely to say that social media employees definitely allow their political opinions to influence their decisions. Of Republicans, 59% say that the employees are “definitely” influenced and 27% say the employees are “probably” influenced by their political opinions, compared to 18% of Democrats who say “definitely” and 48% who say “probably.”

Belief about whether social media employees allow their political opinions to impact their decisions may lead to perceptions of bias against certain groups. While a majority of Americans say that social media companies’ rules are not biased against Democrats (83%), Republicans (56%), or racial minorities (72%), partisans disagree: 79% of Republicans believe that social media companies’ rules are biased against them, while 87% of Democrats say that the rules are not biased against Republicans. But both Democrats (24%) and Republicans (90%) agree that the rules are not biased against Democrats. Among independents, there is the perception that social media companies are biased against Republicans but not biased against Democrats: 55% of independents say that social media companies’ rules are biased against Republicans, while only 16% say they are biased against Democrats.

In general, Americans are more than twice as likely to say that social media companies are biased against Republicans (44%) than Democrats (17%). Furthermore, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats or racial minorities to perceive targeted bias. African Americans (38%), Hispanic Americans (31%), and Asian Americans (43%) are somewhat more likely than White Americans (24%) to perceive themselves as being targeted by these companies.

Taken together, these results suggest that, while a majority of Americans believe that social media company rules are influenced by the political perspectives of the companies’ employees, Democrats are less likely to perceive a bias against themselves. Republicans, however, do perceive a bias, which indicates that they may be concerned that the employees disagree with their political views and thus the employees’ decisions on how to write and enforce rules on what can be said and shared on the platforms favors a liberal perspective.

Almost half (45%) of Americans say that social media is trying to pass Biden’s agenda. A similar number (43%) say that social media is acting in an unbiased manner toward the presidents’ agenda, while only 12% say they are trying to block it.

Aligning with their concern over the bias of social media, Republicans are much more likely to say that social media is actively supporting the president: 80% say social media is trying to pass Biden’s agenda, while 17% say it is unbiased and 4% say it is trying to block it. Democrats disagree, with only 14% who say social media is trying to pass his agenda, 63% who say it is unbiased, and 22% who say it is trying to block it.

Most Americans (55%) agree with the decisions made by Facebook and Twitter to ban former president Donald Trump from their platforms following the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol, but there is a large partisan split: 93% of Democrats and 54% of independents agree with the decision. In contrast, 85% of Republicans disagree.

Republicans (81%) say that Facebook and Twitter violated the First Amendment when they elected to ban Trump, while Democrats (89%) say that the First Amendment was not violated. While Facebook and Twitter are private platforms and their decision to ban Trump did not violate the First Amendment, Republicans’ perception that they did highlights their strong emotional response to the banning, even if they are factually wrong.

Part of this emotional response may be explained by Republicans’ concerns that if Trump can be banned, then they themselves are also more likely to have their account suspended by these companies. Republicans (38%) are nearly four times more likely than Democrats (10%) to say that Trump’s suspension makes them feel like their social media accounts are more likely to be suspended. A quarter (25%) of independents agree.

A slim majority (51%) of Americans say that government should reduce or not change its regulation of technology companies such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Nearly the same share (49%) want to increase regulation. Strongly liberals (72%) are the most likely to support increased regulation, compared to 45% of moderates and 52% of strong conservatives.

Majorities of Americans favor Congress regulating social media companies to limit political bias (55%) and to limit the spread of false information (55%), but support for these types of regulation differ by ideology. Interestingly, 61% of both strong liberals and strong conservatives favor regulation to limit political bias, compared to 54% of moderates. However, there is strong ideological disagreement on whether Congress should regulate the spread of false information: while 80% of strong liberals favor regulations to limit misinformation, only 41% of strong conservatives agree.

Slim majorities of Americans agree that government should punish social media sites if they don’t stop the spread of health misinformation (51%); don’t stop users from using hate speech (54%); or if they aren’t politically neutral (51%). However, partisan differences on what government should punish highlight that Democrats and Republicans have different concerns about the potential negative impacts of social media. Large majorities of Democrats support punishing social media companies if they don’t stop people from saying or sharing things the government has classified as health misinformation (74%) or hate speech (78%). Only 34% and 37% of Republicans agree, respectively. Republicans, on the other hand, support (60%) punishing sites like Facebook if they aren’t politically neutral, while less than half (47%) of Democrats agree.

Although many Americans have concerns about how social media companies handle content moderation, a majority (58%) feel these companies are better suited to determine and enforce rules than government regulators.

However, strong liberals stand out, with 54% who think that government regulators would be better at determining what users are allowed to say or share. In contrast, moderate liberals (55%) and conservatives (55%) agree that companies and their employees are better suited for this task.

These differences may be based on concerns about handing the government increased power. While Americans are worried about the spread of misinformation, 62% say they are more worried about giving government the power to restrict speech on social media. However, 64% of strong liberals and 59% of moderate liberals are more concerned about the spread of false information, while 59% of moderates, 83% of conservatives, and 84% of strong conservatives are more concerned about giving the government power.

Americans also believe that the government does not know enough to regulate technology companies: 73% say that lawmakers and regulators don’t understand technology and technology companies well enough to regulate them wisely. There is agreement across ideologies, with 69% of strong liberals and 71% of strong conservatives agreeing that government does not understand technology enough to regulate it wisely.

The Cato Institute 2021 Speech and Social Media Survey was designed and conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov. YouGov collected responses online August 11–16, 2021, from a national sample of 2,000 Americans who were 18 years of age and older. Restrictions were put in place to ensure that only the people selected and contacted by YouGov were allowed to participate. The margin of error for the survey is +/− 2.5 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

The Cato Institute 2021 Speech and Social Media National Survey was made possible in part through generous support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.