公众对错误信息干预措施的支持取决于感知到的公平性、有效性和侵入性
Public support for misinformation interventions depends on perceived fairness, effectiveness, and intrusiveness
AI总结：
该研究以1010名美国社交媒体用户为对象，发现公众对错误信息干预措施的支持度主要取决于感知公平性、有效性和侵入性，支持用户自主权与透明度的干预更受欢迎，且存在民主党人、女性支持度更高的人口统计学差异。
摘要：
社交媒体上错误信息的扩散可能带来令人担忧的后果，例如民主规范的退化。尽管近期针对对抗错误信息的研究主要集中在分析干预措施的有效性上，但与公众对这些干预措施的支持相关的因素却很少受到关注。我们邀请了1010名美国社交媒体用户对他们对政府或社交媒体公司实施的10种错误信息干预措施的支持度及感知情况进行评分。我们的结果表明，干预措施的感知公平性是与支持度相关的最重要因素，其次是该干预措施的感知有效性，然后是侵入性。支持用户自主权和透明度的干预措施，例如标注内容或对广告进行事实核查，比那些涉及审核或移除内容或账户的干预措施更受欢迎。我们发现支持度存在一些人口统计学差异，民主党人和女性对干预措施的支持度更高，且分别比共和党人和男性认为这些干预措施更公平、更有效、侵入性更低。了解哪些干预措施得到支持以及它们如何被感知至关重要，因为公众舆论在政策的推出和有效性方面可以发挥关键作用。
英文摘要：
The proliferation of misinformation on social media has concerning possible consequences, such as the degradation of democratic norms. While recent research on countering misinformation has largely focused on analyzing the effectiveness of interventions, the factors associated with public support for these interventions have received little attention. We asked 1,010 American social media users to rate their support for and perceptions of ten misinformation interventions implemented by the government or social media companies. Our results indicate that the perceived fairness of the intervention is the most important factor associated with support, followed by the perceived effectiveness of that intervention and then the intrusiveness. Interventions that supported user agency and transparency, such as labeling content or fact-checking ads, were more popular than those that involved moderating or removing content or accounts. We found some demographic differences in support levels, with Democrats and women supporting interventions more and rating them as more fair, more effective, and less intrusive than Republicans and men do, respectively. It is critical to understand which interventions are supported and how they are perceived, as public opinion can play a key role in the rollout and effectiveness of policies.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
