Content uploaded by Waqas Ejaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Waqas Ejaz on Nov 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
What Do People Want? Views on Platforms and
the Digital Public Sphere in Eight Countries
Waqas Ejaz, Richard Fletcher, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, and
Shannon C. McGregor
REUTERS INSTITUTE REPORT • NOVEMBER 2024
What Do People Want?
Views on Platforms and
the Digital Public Sphere
in Eight Countries
Waqas Ejaz, Richard Fletcher,
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, and
Shannon C. McGregor
Published by the Reuters Institute for the Study
of Journalism at the University of Oxford.
1
Contents
About the Authors 2
Acknowledgements 2
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 6
Methodology 8
Chapter 1: Public Use of Platforms
for Political News and Information 10
Chapter 2: Platforms and their
Relationship to Politics and Democracy 21
Chapter 3: Platform Policy,
Responsibility, and Governance 32
Chapter 4: Public Perception of
Platforms More Generally 42
Conclusions 47
References 49
DOI: 10.60625/risj-8pk9-d398
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
2
About the Authors
Dr Waqas Ejaz is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism. His research interests include studying comparative journalism practices, climate
change communication, and the use and effects of digital media.
Dr Richard Fletcher is Director of Research at the Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism. He is primarily interested in global trends in digital news consumption,
comparative media research, the use of social media by journalists and news organisations, and
more broadly, the relationship between technology and journalism.
Prof. Rasmus Kleis Nielsen is a Professor at the Department of Communication at the
University of Copenhagen and Senior Research Associate at the Reuters Institute for the Study
of Journalism. From 2015 to 2018, he served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of
Press/Politics. His work focuses on changes in the news media, political communication, and the
role of digital technologies in both.
Prof. Shannon C. McGregor is an Associate Professor in the Hussman School of Journalism
and Media and a Principal Investigator with the Center for Information, Technology, and Public
Life at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Daniel Marshall, Claire Preston, and Clare Yetton at Ipsos for their assistance
in conducting this research. We also extend our appreciation to Kate Hanneford-Smith, Alex
Reid, and Rebecca Edwards for their efforts in advancing this project and ensuring its timely
progress. Finally, we acknowledge the research team at the Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism (RISJ) for their insightful feedback and contributions to this manuscript.
This work is published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism with the support of
the Knight Foundation.
3
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to analyse the role of digital platforms in contemporary media
environments, including public perception of the benets and problems they bring, especially
when it comes to news and information about politics.
Overall, we nd evidence for what we call ‘platform ambivalence’. This refers to the fact that
many people use platforms for news and information about politics, while also remaining
sceptical of the information they see there, and concerned about misinformation, bias, privacy,
freedom of expression, and tech power. At the same time, people also appreciate the wider
societal and personal benets, such as easy access to information and staying connected with
friends and family.
The report focuses on ve platform types: (i) social media, e.g. Facebook, X (formerly Twitter),
Instagram, and TikTok; (ii) search engines, e.g. Google, Bing, and Yahoo!; (iii) video networks,
e.g. YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion; (iv) messaging apps, e.g. WhatsApp, WeChat, and
Facebook Messenger; and (v) generative AI chatbots, e.g. ChatGPT, Google Gemini,
and Perplexity.
Based on survey data from eight countries, we nd the following, grouped into four categories.
Findings relating to the use of platforms for news and information about politics:
• Across eight countries, search engines are the most widely used platform for news (45%),
followed by social media (41%) and video networks (30%). Messaging apps (15%) and
generative AI (7%) are not widely used for this purpose. Online news websites and apps
(59%) and TV (57%) are still more widely used than any individual platform type.
• The use of news outlets and the use of digital platforms to get news and information
are highly intertwined, not an either/or. Most respondents – between 52% and 82%
depending on the country – report getting their political news and information from
platforms and online/ofine news outlets, in part because platforms host content from
news outlets. Only a small minority of 10% or less rely exclusively on platforms or, more
commonly, only on news outlets.
• People who use platforms for news and information about politics are more likely to also
use online news from broadcast and print brands. For example, among those who do not
use social media for news and information about politics, 22% use a newspaper website –
this rises to 39% among those that do use social media.
• There are important differences between those who use platforms for news and
information about politics and those who do not. Younger people, men, those with higher
interest in politics, and those more comfortable with technology are all more likely to use
platforms for this purpose. Differences by left/right political ideology are small.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
4
Findings relating to the relationship between platforms, politics, and democracy:
• Most people are sceptical of digital platforms as a source of news and information about
politics. Just over one third trust video networks (37%), and just under one third trust
messaging apps (31%). Social media is trusted by 30% and generative AI by 27%. Search
engines are an outlier, trusted by a slight majority (55%).
• Platforms tend to be more trusted as a source of political news and information by
younger people and, to a lesser extent, men and those on the political right. These
patterns can vary by country. For example, search engines are more trusted by those on
the left in Germany, Brazil, and the USA.
• Asked about a range of functionalities related to the public sphere, averaging across
eight countries, clear majorities think that platforms have made it easier to connect
with friends and family (66%), nd the information they need (63%), and connect with
likeminded people (59%).
• Clearly illustrating the ‘platform ambivalence’ described above, there is also widespread
recognition of possible problems – more than half think that platforms have made it
easier for people to say things they wouldn’t say in person (69%), spread misinformation
(69%), harass or threaten others (66%), or spread extreme viewpoints (64%).
• Less than half typically think that platforms are systematically biased towards certain
political views – but many people are uncertain. Perceptions of bias can be much stronger
among certain political groups, with those on the right in the USA (69%) and on the left in
Argentina (71%) much more likely to think that social media is systematically biased.
• Asked about what, on balance, brings people together rather than drives them apart, we
see large differences across platforms, and between platforms and other actors in society.
Messaging apps (+19) and search engines (+12) are platforms that, people think, on
balance, bring us together. In contrast, on balance, respondents think that social media
divides us (-13). Comparing platforms with other actors in society, many more people
think that journalists (-29), the news media (-27), and, especially, politicians (-55) divide
us than say the same about any of the platforms we asked about.
Findings relating to platform policy and governance:
• On average across eight countries, more than one third of respondents feel that areas
such as misinformation (39%), generative AI misuse (38%), and tech companies’ handling
of personal data (36%) are getting too little attention from policymakers. Those in Brazil
are more likely to think this, whereas in Japan people are more likely to say the amount of
attention these issues get is about right.
• A majority in each country believe that platforms should take responsibility for showing
false or misleading information posted by their users, with especially high support in
South Korea (77% for social media and 79% for video networks) and Japan (73% for both
social media and video networks), and a slightly smaller majority in the USA (65%) saying
the same for social media platforms.
5
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
• Generally, in line with previous research by the Knight Foundation in the USA, there is
much greater public appetite for platforms taking responsibility for their products and
services than there is for government action. Generative AI is the main exception to this
– for this platform, only 48% believe platforms should hold primary responsibility, while
39% think national governments should have a greater role.
• Views are split on whether platforms should only allow strong privacy settings versus
letting users choose their own settings, with little variation by platform.
Findings relating to the public perception of platforms more generally:
• Despite the generally low trust and widespread concern over various issues related to
politics, large numbers of respondents judge that platforms have a net positive impact
both for them personally and for society as a whole. This is especially true for search
engines, and, to a lesser extent, video networks. People in Germany, the UK, the USA,
and South Korea think that social media has a net negative effect on society (while often
thinking it has a net positive effect on them personally).
• While people use digital platforms, they are also concerned about problems associated
with them, with strong majorities expressing concern over various online issues. The
spread of misinformation online tops the list, with 87% expressing concern, followed
closely by the use of generative AI to create fake content (84%). Concerns about personal
data usage by major tech companies also remain high at 80%. By contrast, issues around
freedom of expression see slightly lower levels of concern.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
6
Introduction
Are digital platforms doing more harm than good to our democracies? And what – if anything –
should policymakers do about them? These were the organising questions for a 2022 report on
media and democracy published by the Knight Foundation and produced in collaboration with
Gallup and a team of researchers based on survey data from the United States. In this report,
we ask a similar set of questions, providing both a 2024 update on many of the issues covered
by that report for the USA and, importantly, a more international look at how the public in
different countries see and think about the different platforms that, in practice, constitute
much of the digital public square.
If one looks to public opinion for answers on the question of whether digital platforms help or
hurt democracy, the overall response is both. We document widespread public awareness of,
and concern over, a number of issues associated with digital platforms, including the spread of
misinformation, the use of AI to create fake content, and problematic data collection practices.
We also show that many see platforms as having made problematic behaviours, including
harassing people and spreading extreme viewpoints, easier. At the same time, however, the
bulk of the public use platforms regularly for many purposes, including accessing news and
information about politics, and see platforms as having made it easier to connect with people
and nd information. More people feel that platforms, for all their shortcomings, have made
their personal lives better and bring societal benets than say the opposite. Much of the
public clearly recognise the complex downsides and upsides that many scholars also argue
platforms offer. In short, we nd evidence of ‘platform ambivalence’.
Young people are generally more optimistic about the role of platforms, even as they are often
also keenly attuned to the problems at hand. Most people continue to be intense users, even as
they worry about some of the implications. Many of these perceptions are broadly aligned with
those the Knight Foundation documented two years ago, and our eight-country comparison
documents that many of them are relatively consistent across different parts of the world.
Going beyond the 2022 report, we offer a more differentiated view here of people’s judgement
of different kinds of digital platforms. Rather than asking about ‘internet technologies’ at large,
we have a detailed battery of questions across different digital platforms, including public
perception of their role in bringing people together or driving us apart. Here, two ndings are
particularly important to underline. First, public perception of social media platforms is much
less positive than public perception of many other digital platforms. Much of what has been
described by some pundits as a ‘techlash’ is, in reality, probably primarily a reaction to social
media and problems ascribed to them, perhaps even to the real and perceived failing of specic
companies. Second, while social media is seen as being among the factors that drive us apart,
when compared with other social institutions, even more people say that journalists, news
media, and, especially, politicians divide us.
What do people want, going forward? Looking across the eight countries, large minorities
of respondents say that threats such as misinformation (39%), generative AI misuse (38%),
and tech companies’ handling of personal data (36%) are getting too little attention from
7
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
policymakers. It is clear that much of the public want more aggressive scrutiny of the role for-
prot companies play in these areas. At the same time, in line with what the Knight Foundation
found in the USA in 2022, across the eight countries we look at, there is generally much greater
public appetite for platforms taking responsibility for their products and services than there is
for government action. A demand for more policy attention and more scrutiny is not always the
same as demand for a greater role for active, direct government intervention.
What people do with, say about, and think of digital platforms is not the only factor to consider
as we seek to govern the digital public square, but it is an important factor to consider for
anyone interested in developing forms of governance that combine credibility and efciency.
In this report, we provide an international and up-to-date basis of evidence that we hope can
inform these discussions going forward.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
8
Methodology
The data for this study were collected through a survey conducted by Ipsos, commissioned by
the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) at the University of Oxford. The study’s
main objective is to investigate public attitudes towards regulating the digital public sphere
and to examine how individuals in different nations view and interact with digital platforms.
This report builds upon earlier research jointly developed by Gallup, the Knight Foundation,
and two researchers (Knight Foundation 2022). This earlier report was limited to the USA so
here we broadened the analysis to include eight countries.
Ipsos collected data using an online questionnaire elded between 1st and 25th October 2024
in eight countries: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the
USA. The country sample provides a range of different high-income democracies that previous
research has documented have all embraced digital media and platforms, but have done so in
quite different ways (Newman et al. 2024; Nielsen and Fletcher 2023). Japan and South Korea,
for example, are important examples of countries where domestic platform companies are in
many ways more prominent than US technology companies.
Ipsos conducted the eldwork, handled data weighting, and provided data tables. Meanwhile,
the authors (one of whom contributed to the above-mentioned Knight Foundation report)
designed the questionnaire and managed the reporting and interpretation of the results. Each
country’s sample was structured using nationally representative quotas for age, gender, region,
and political orientation. The data were weighted according to census data or industry-standard
targets for these demographic variables.
Each country’s sample size was approximately 2,000 participants. Due to the non-probability
sampling method, a traditional ‘margin of error’ for individual data points cannot be calculated.
We caution readers that differences of two percentage points or less are unlikely to be
Country Sample size Fieldwork dates
Argentina 2,038 9th–23rd October 2024
Brazil 2,111 9th–21st October 2024
Germany 2,085 4th–8th October 2024
Japan 2,065 16th–23rd October 2024
South Korea 2,000 16th–25th October 2024
Spain 2,122 4th–15th October 2024
UK 2,156 1st–3rd October 202
USA 2,085 4th–15th October 2024
9
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
statistically signicant and should be interpreted carefully because such small variations
are generally not considered meaningful and are not emphasised in the analysis to
prevent misinterpretation.
It is important to acknowledge that online surveys may under-represent individuals who are
not digitally connected, such as older adults, less afuent groups, and those with limited formal
education. Additionally, online panel participants often include a higher proportion of well-
educated, socially, and politically active individuals who voluntarily opt into surveys.
Furthermore, online surveys present certain limitations, mainly due to their reliance on
respondents’ memory, which is often susceptible to inaccuracies and various biases. Several
sections of the survey ask respondents to recall past behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes towards
various digital platforms – a task that may be inuenced by social desirability bias.
Additionally, when addressing complex socio-technical issues, respondents might interpret
terminologies differently from experts, potentially impacting the consistency of responses.
While such challenges are typical in surveys like this, we have implemented strategies to
mitigate these effects, including careful question design and wording.
Lastly, it is worth noting that data collection occurred between 1st and 25th October 2024,
coinciding with election campaigns in the USA and Japan. While we do not observe clear
implications of this for our ndings, heightened political engagement during this period could
have inuenced views on political participation in these countries, which readers should
consider when interpreting the results.
Some gures in this report do not show all percentages. These can be viewed in the interactive
gures at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/what-do-people-want-views-platforms-
and-digital-public-sphere-eight-countries
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
10
Chapter 1: Public Use of Platforms for Political News
and Information
For more than a decade now, the impact of platforms like social media, search engines, video
networks, and messaging apps on democracy has been a central part of the broader political
discourse. And based on events in the last two years – following the emergence and rapid
adoption of ChatGPT – we can add generative AI to the list of platforms that are seen as
potentially shaping the public’s relationship with politics.
Perhaps the most basic question we can ask, then, is how widely are online platforms used
for news and information about politics – and how do they compare with other sources of
information?
The results from our survey show that search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo! – used
by 45% for news and information about politics in the last week – are the most widely used
online platform type on average across the eight countries studied (Figure 1). However, they
are less widely used for politics than both television (59%) and online news websites and apps
(57%) – which we dened for respondents as being either the website or app of a broadcaster,
newspaper, magazine, or digital-born source. Social media (41%) – which includes networks
such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and TikTok – is the next most widely used
platform type, followed by video networks (30%) such as YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion.
Messaging apps like WhatsApp, WeChat, and Facebook Messenger (15%) are less widely used
for news and information about politics. The use of generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT,
Google Gemini, and Grok (7%) for this purpose is still marginal, but this may change as they
move from ‘visible’ standalone tools to ‘invisible’ features integrated into existing services
(such as AI overviews in Google search).
Figure 1. Proportion who used each for news or information about politics in the last week
On average across eight countries, social media and search engines are the most widely used platform for politics.
However, they are still less widely used than online news websites/app and TV.
Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: Total sample across eight countries =
16,758.
Proportion who used each for news or information about politics in the
la
st week
On
average across eight countries, social media and search engines are the most widely used platform for politics. However, they
a
re still less widely used than online news websites/app and TV.
Argentina Brazil Germany Japan South Korea Spain UK USA Average of eight countries
Online platforms
Search engines
Social media
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Other sources
Online news websites/apps
TV
Radio
Newspapers
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
45%
41%
30%
15%
7%
59%
57%
19%
13%
Q10.
Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
11
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 2 shows that some countries deviate from this general pattern. In the UK and the USA,
search and social media are equally widely used for news and information about politics, and in
Brazil and Argentina social media is ahead – in part because social media is more widely used
generally. In Japan and South Korea, where parts of the platform ecosystem look very different,
social media is relatively marginal when it comes to politics (as are messaging apps), but video
networks and search are both widely used. It is important to recognise that these variations
are not driven by whether people use digital platforms generally – social media, for example, is
used by virtually all internet users in all these countries – but are variations in whether and how
people use them to access news and information about politics (Nielsen and Fletcher 2023).
Figure 2. Proportion who used each for news and information about politics in the last week
Search engines and social media are the most used platforms for politics in most countries, but video networks are
popular in South Korea.
Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
In the Reuters Institute Digital News Report (Newman et al. 2024), we often refer to Japan
and South Korea as ‘deeply aggregated’ online news media environments, because the public
there are much more likely to rely on search engines and news aggregators as a gateway to
news. In Japan, Yahoo! News is by far the most widely used online news source, and Line is a
popular messaging app. In South Korea, a handful of domestic platforms structure the online
media environment and are themselves important gateways to news. Departing from the Meta
Proportion who used each for news
and in
formation about politics in
the la
st week
Sea
rch engines and social media are the most used platforms for
politics in mo
st countries, but video networks are popular in
South
Korea.
USA
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
UK
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Spain
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Germany
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Brazil
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Argentina
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Japan
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
South Korea
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
45%
45%
29%
11%
8%
34%
34%
16%
11%
6%
40%
38%
21%
17%
6%
27%
37%
18%
12%
5%
60%
48%
36%
33%
12%
66%
50%
40%
22%
8%
32%
54%
29%
5%
5%
26%
58%
51%
9%
8%
Search and social
most used
Social most used
Sear
ch and video
most used
Q10.
Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on
politics in [
country]? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Proportion who used each for news
and in
formation about politics in
the la
st week
Sea
rch engines and social media are the most used platforms for
politics in mo
st countries, but video networks are popular in
South
Korea.
USA
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
UK
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Spain
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Germany
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Brazil
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Argentina
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Japan
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
South Korea
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
45%
45%
29%
11%
8%
34%
34%
16%
11%
6%
40%
38%
21%
17%
6%
27%
37%
18%
12%
5%
60%
48%
36%
33%
12%
66%
50%
40%
22%
8%
32%
54%
29%
5%
5%
26%
58%
51%
9%
8%
Search and social
most used
Social most used
Sear
ch and video
most used
Q10.
Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on
politics in [
country]? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
12
(Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) and Alphabet (Google and YouTube) domination that we
see in most other countries in the world, the most widely used social network and messaging
app is KakaoTalk, and Naver and to a lesser extent Daum compete with Google for search
market share. YouTube, however, is the dominant video network in South Korea – in common
with much of the rest of the world. Nonetheless, these differences at the platform brand level
probably, to some degree, shape the differences we see between South Korea and some of the
other countries in our survey.
In South Korea... In Japan...
If we look at that usage data in a different way, and group together all online platforms (search
engines, social media, video networks, messaging apps, and generative AI) and group together
all online and ofine sources of news (TV, print, radio, and online news websites/apps) we can
see the overlap between each.
When we do this in Figure 3, we see that in all eight countries, most people – between 52%
and 82% depending on the country – are now getting their political news and information
from platforms and online and ofine news outlets. Most people, then, are navigating a media
environment that contains lots of very different sources of political news and information, and
platforms – particularly search and social – have become deeply integrated into how they do so.
This is even true in the UK and Germany, which in many respects have more traditional
patterns of news consumption, where only around one third in 2024 get news and information
about politics exclusively from online or ofine news outlets without also relying on online
platforms. Elsewhere, the gures are even lower.
By the same token, very few people are only getting political news and information from online
platforms. The highest gure in our data was 10% in Brazil. The same is true for younger people
– just 10% of 18–24s get their political news and information solely from platforms. And even
for these people, much of the news content they see on platforms will have originated from
news outlets and will be branded as such.
Used by 77%
for any purpose
in last week
Used by 82%
for any purpose
in last week
Used by 64%
for any purpose
in last week
13
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 3. Overlap between the use of platforms and news outlets for news and information
about politics
In every country, most people use a mixture of platforms and news outlets for news and information about
politics – just 10% or less get their political news and information exclusively from platforms.
Q7. Which, if any, of the following have you used as a source of news or information about politics in [country], in the last 7 days?
Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
It is difcult to unpick the relationship between the use of online platforms for political
information and the use of websites and apps of news outlets – because most platforms host
information from these sources, as well as acting as gateways to them. Although platforms are
used by some as a one-stop-shop for news, research based on passive web tracking data shows
that on average they increase people’s use of news websites, as people often click through
to articles they would not have accessed otherwise (Stier et al. 2021). We cannot do this kind
of analysis with the survey data we have, but it is worth pointing out that people who use
platforms for news and information about politics are more likely to also use online news from
broadcast and print brands (Figure 4). For example, among those who do not use social media
for news and information about politics, 22% use a newspaper website – but this rises to 39%
among those that do use social media.
Overlap between the use of platforms and news outlets
for news and information politics
In every country, most people use a mixture of platforms and news outlets for news and information
about politics - just 10% or less get their political news and information exclusively from platforms.
Both Only platform Only news outlets Neither
Argentina
South Korea
Brazil
Japan
USA
Spain
Germany
UK
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
100%
82% 8%
80% 9% 7%
79% 10%
66% 23%
62% 8% 18% 12%
62% 6% 21% 11%
52% 33% 10%
52% 29% 14%
Q7. Which, if any, of the following have you used as a source of news or information about politics in [country], in
the last 7 days? Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base:
Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Source: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
countries', published in November 2024.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
14
Figure 4. Proportion who used a newspaper or broadcaster website for news and information about
politics – by platform use
Across eight countries, people who use search engines and social media for news and information about politics
are more likely to also use newspaper and broadcaster websites for the same purpose.
Q7. Which, if any, of the following have you used as a source of news or information about politics in [country], in the last 7 days?
Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: Did not use/used social media/
search engines across eight countries = 9876/6882 9018/7740.
Although the overall picture is one where most people are using both online/ofine news
sources and online platforms, there are still relevant differences by demographic groups.
Across all countries, those more interested in politics are more likely to use platforms for
news and information about politics. Personal motivation for consuming news, which in
media research is usually understood and measured as political interest, has long been seen
as the primary reason why some people consume news while others do not. However, we
might question whether political interest is as important in today’s platformed online media
environment, given that people often see news and information about politics ‘incidentally’,
as they use platforms for other reasons (Schäfer 2023; Tewksbury et al. 2001). But in fact,
there are still very large differences in the use of all platforms for news and information about
politics by political interest.
As Figure 5 shows, the differences by political interest are large for all ve platform types,
but particularly for search engines (26% not interested versus 52% interested), because they
typically require the user to be motivated enough to enter a search query related to politics.
The differences for social media – though still large (24% versus 47%) – may be slightly
smaller because many social networks still enable a degree of incidental exposure to news and
information about politics, whereby users are shown political content after logging on to do
something else.
Proportion that used a newspaper or broadcaster website
for news and information about politics
Across 8 countries, people who use search engines and social media for news and information about
politics, are more likely to use newspaper and broadcaster websites for the same purpose.
Social media for news and information about politics
Also used newspaper website Also used broadcaster website
Did not use 22% 18%
Used 39% 35%
Search engine for news and information about politics
Also used newspaper website Also used broadcaster website
Did not use 21% 18%
Used 39% 33%
Q7. Which, if any, of the following have you used as a source of news or information about politics in [country], in
the last 7 days? Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: Did
not use/used social media/search engines across all countries = 9876/6882 9018/7740.
15
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 5. Proportion who used each for news and information about politics in the last week – by
political interest
On average across eight countries, people who are very or somewhat interested in politics are more likely to have
used each platform for news and information about politics.
Q3. How interested, or not, would you say you are in politics? Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on
politics in [country]? Base: Not interested/interested in politics across all countries = 4079/12,585.
If we compare these gaps with those for ofine sources – TV, radio, and newspapers – we see
gaps of a similar size, though the largest gap of all is for online news websites and apps (34%
versus 68%). Political interest matters both online and ofine, and this is true for people in
every age group. But it is also noticeable that TV is still relatively widely used by people with
low interest in politics (40%), making it a particularly important source of political information
for this group – even more so than social media.
One factor that is less often considered in the discussions about the use of online platforms for
politics is how comfortable people are with using new technology – but there are big gaps here
too (Figure 6). People who tend to think things like ‘new technologies make my quality of life
worse’ or that they ‘nd it difcult to keep up to date with new technologies’ are less likely to
have used platforms for news and information about politics1. However, there are no such gaps
when it comes to the use of ofine sources of news and information about politics, such as TV,
newspapers, and radio. This reminds us that there are still barriers to entry for some people
when it comes to online platforms (even among people who participate in online surveys), and
again, that TV is a particularly important source of information for this group.
1 We measured comfort with technology using a scale adapted from the Ada Lovelace Institute (2023). The questions were
displayed as a 0-10 slider and asked: ‘On the screen are two contrasting statements. Please select a point on the line between
the two statements that you feel best reects your personal opinion toward new technologies’. The four sliders ranged from: ‘0.
Overall, new technologies make my quality of life worse’ to ‘10. Overall, new technologies improve my quality of life’, ‘0. Overall,
I nd it difcult to keep up to date with new technologies’ to ‘10. Overall, I nd it easy to keep up to date with new technologies’,
‘0. Overall, new technologies are changing society too quickly’ to ‘10. Overall, new technologies are changing society at a good
pace’ and ‘0. Overall, new technologies are making society worse’ to ‘10. Overall, new technologies are making society better’.
Respondents with a mean score of over 5 were classed as being comfortable with technology, whereas those below 5 were classed
as being uncomfortable with technology.
Proportion who used each for news and information about
politics in the last week – by political interest
On average across eight countries, people who are very or somewhat interested in politics are more
likely to have used each platform for news and information about politics.
Online platforms
Search engines 26% 52%
Social media 24% 47%
Video networks 15% 35%
Messaging apps 9% 17%
Generative AI 3% 9%
Not interested in
politics
|
Interested in
politics
|
Other sources
Online news websites/apps 34% 68%
TV 40% 63%
Radio 7% 23%
Newspapers 5% 15%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Gap is similar for TV -
but used by more
people with low
interest
Q3. How interested, or not, would you say you are in politics? Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or
information on politics in [country]? Base: Not interested/interested in politics across all countries = 4079/12,585.
Source: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
countries', published in November 2024.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
16
Figure 6. Proportion who used each for news and information about politics in the last week – by
comfort with technology
On average across eight countries, people who are uncomfortable with technology are less likely to use online
platforms for news and information about politics – but this gap does not exist for offline sources.
Q3. How interested, or not, would you say you are in politics? Q7. Which, if any, of the following have you used as a source of news
or information about politics in [country], in the last 7 days? Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on
politics in [country]? Base: Not interested/interested in politics across all countries = 4079/12,585.
There are also smaller – but still noteworthy – differences in the use of online platforms by
age and gender as, Figure 7 shows. Again averaging across the eight countries, men are more
likely than women to use all platform types for news and information about politics, and the
difference is particularly stark when it comes to the use of video networks – used in the last
week by 37% of men, compared with 23% of women. Younger people are more likely to say
that they use each platform type for news and information about politics. The differences are
particularly large for social media, which is used by 58% of 18–24s for news and information
about politics, but by just 27% of the 55s and over. The differences by age group are smaller
for the other platforms – and in the case of search engines, there is no signicant difference
between the youngest and the oldest age groups.
Proportion who used each for news and information about
politics in the last week – by comfort with technology
On average across eight countries, people who are uncomfortable with technology are less likely to use
online platforms for news and information about politics - but this gap does not exist for offline sources.
Online platforms
Search engines 36% 49%
Social media 28% 46%
Video networks 21% 33%
Messaging apps 9% 17%
Generative AI 3% 9%
Uncomfortable
with technology
|
Comfortable
with technology
|
Offline sources
TV 53% 58%
Radio 16% 20%
Newspapers 13% 13%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Very small gaps by comfort
with technology for offline
sources
Q3. How interested, or not, would you say you are in politics? Q7. Which, if any, of the following have you used as
a source of news or information about politics in [country], in the last 7 days? Q10. Which of them, if any, did you
use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: Not interested/interested in politics across all countries
= 4079/12,585.
Source: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
17
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 7. Proportion who used each for news and information about politics in the last week – by
age group and gender
Men are more likely to use every platform for news and information about politics. The same is true for younger
people, apart from search engines, where there are no differences by age group.
Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: 18–24/25–34/35–44/45–54/55+ =
1888/3278/3519/3517/4556, Men/Women = 8095/8053.
One of the reasons that the differences by age are interesting is that they run counter to what
we know about the use of other types of media for news and information about politics, which
are much more heavily used by older people – even in the case of online news websites (Figure
8). If we return to the comparison with TV and radio – which are in a sense ofine platforms,
given that they offer people access to a range of different news and information choices in the
same place – we see pronounced age differences, but skewed towards the older groups.
Figure 8. Proportion who used each for news and information about politics in the last week – by
age group
In contrast to most online platforms, older people are more likely to use TV and radio. TV is especially important for
the over 55s, but it is still more widely used than most platforms among the younger age groups.
Q7. Which, if any, of the following have you used as a source of news or information about politics in [country], in the last 7 days?
Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: 18–24/25–34/35–44/45–54/55+ =
1888/3278/3519/3517/4556.
Proportion that used each to get news and political
information in the last week - by age group and gender
Men and younger people are likely to use every platform, apart from search engines.
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Men W
omen
0
20
40
60
80%
Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
By age group By gender
Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base: 18-24/25-34/35-
44/45-54/55+ = 1888/3278/3519/3517/4556, Men/Women = 8095/8053.
Proportion who used each for news and information about
politics in the la
st week – by age group
In
contrast to most online platforms, older people are more likely to use TV and radio. TV is especially
impo
rtant for the over 55s, but it is still more widely used than most platforms among the younger age
g
roups.
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
0
20
40
60
80%
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
Radio
TV
Q7.
Which, if any, of the following have you used as a source of news or information about politics in [country], in
the la
st 7 days? Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? B
ase: 18–
24/25–34/35–44/45–54/55+ = 1888/3278/3519/3517/4556.
Sou
rce: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
c
ountries', published in November 2024.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
18
Older people are much more likely to get political news and information from television, and
for the over 55s, it is clearly the most widely used source (69%). The data are also a reminder of
the importance of television for the younger groups, with only social media more widely used
for politics than television among the 18–24s. When it comes to gender, similar to platforms,
men are more likely than women to use TV and radio for news and information about politics.
Finally in this chapter, we consider the differences in platform use by political leaning (see next
page for Figure 9). Throughout this report we group respondents by whether they self-identify
as left wing, right wing, or in the centre, because – although it is an imperfect measure, and
there are other ways of grouping people – it is the only set of political categories that is widely
understood by the public across different countries.
19
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 9. Proportion who used each for news and information about politics in the last week – by
political leaning
Those on the right are slightly more likely to use platforms for news and information about politics but the pattern is
inconsistent and the differences are generally small.
Q1. Some people talk about ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’ to describe parties and politicians. (Generally, socialist parties would be
considered ‘left wing’ whilst conservative parties would be considered ‘right wing’.) With this in mind, where would you place
yourself on the following scale? Q10. Which of them, if any, did you use for news or information on politics in [country]? Base:
Left/Centre/Right in Germany = 242/1417/182, UK = 410/1092/287, USA = 400/961/437, Brazil = 485/714/542, Spain =
594/994/274, Argentina = 165/1010/462, Japan = 74/1288/219, South Korea = 250/1395/213.
[ Insert title here ]
Argentina Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 69% 59% 54% 32% 12%
Centre 69% 56% 40% 22% 9%
Right 72% 50% 48% 23% 10%
Brazil Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 63% 54% 37% 34% 12%
Centre 62% 54% 39% 36% 14%
Right 66% 45% 42% 32% 13%
Germany Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 33% 39% 20% 12% 3%
Centre 26% 38% 17% 12% 5%
Right 34% 40% 32% 14% 8%
Japan Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 43% 59% 36% 10% 13%
Centre 35% 58% 32% 6% 6%
Right 39% 67% 49% 6% 8%
South Korea Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 28% 61% 57% 5% 4%
Centre 27% 59% 51% 10% 9%
Right 32% 68% 65% 12% 12%
Spain Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 44% 42% 20% 18% 6%
Centre 39% 40% 22% 18% 8%
Right 45% 34% 26% 17% 7%
UK Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 44% 38% 19% 11% 7%
Centre 33% 38% 17% 11% 6%
Right 45% 38% 22% 19% 9%
USA Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 46% 47% 30% 10% 9%
Centre 49% 46% 32% 13% 9%
Right 45% 52% 30% 11% 11%
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
20
In terms of the use of different platforms for news and information about politics, we do not
nd large differences by political leaning in different countries (Figure 9). In most cases, the
rank order of platforms within a particular country does not deviate from that described above.
There are some exceptions. For example, those on the right in Japan are more likely to use
video networks for news and information about politics relative to those on the left, and in the
UK those on the left and the right are more likely to use social media than those in the centre
– but in general usage patterns are quite similar. The bigger divide is between those who are
interested in politics and those who are not. This is in line with a broader literature in the social
sciences, which reminds us that while partisan divides are often very visible, because they are
drawn between very vocal groups, the ‘other divide’, between those interested in politics and
those who are not, is often at least as signicant (Krupnikov and Ryan 2022).
Of course, this does not necessarily mean that the content people see on platforms does not
skew in one direction or the other, or that people at different ends of the political spectrum do
not think about platforms differently. We will explore this question later in the report.
21
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Chapter 2: Platforms and their Relationship to Politics
and Democracy
Online platforms, including social media networks, search engines, video networks, messaging
apps, and generative AI tools, have fundamentally transformed our media and information
environment (Nielsen and Ganter 2022). Platforms are now understood by some experts not
just as technologies for accessing news and information about politics (which we explored in
Chapter 1), but also as having the potential to inuence people’s relationship with politics and
society (Fischer and Jarren 2024; Mont’Alverne et al. 2022).
Although some experts and pundits initially viewed platforms with optimism, concerns over
privacy, algorithmic biases, and the spread of misinformation have led many to question
their broader societal role (Metzler and Garcia 2024). This is especially true after contentious
political events and when the stakes are high. Platforms are also, in many countries,
increasingly explicitly politicised as elected ofcials, civil society groups, and rival industries
question their conduct and role in society.
But what do the public think about the relationship between platforms, politics, and
democracy? We rst explore how trusted different online platforms are for news and
information about politics. How trusted a platform is can be very different to how trustworthy
a platform actually is, but the former is still important to understand because it tells us
something about how people will likely respond to information they see there.
The results show that, on average across eight countries, search engines are the most trusted
source of news and information about politics – with a slight majority of 55% saying they
‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ trust them (Figure 10). This relatively high level of trust in search
engines stands in stark contrast to other platforms. Just over one third on average say they trust
video networks (37%), and just under one third trust messaging apps (31%) – with a roughly
similar proportion saying that they distrust them (29%). Social media is trusted by 30% and
generative AI by 27% – and both of these platforms have higher proportions who say that they
distrust them (38% for social media and 33% for generative AI). Generative AI tools, however,
are less widely used by the public at present, and public perceptions may shift as people have
more experience of using them.
Figure 10. Proportion who trust each for news and information about politics
Search engines are widely trusted as a source of political news or information across most countries, while around
one third of respondents trust other platforms.
Q12. For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news or information about politics?
Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
Proportion who trust each for news and information about
politics –
average of eight countries
Sea
rch engines are widely trusted as a source of political news or information across most countries,
while a
round one third of respondents trust other platforms.
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
55%
37%
31%
30%
27%
Q12.
For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news or information
about politics?
Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
Sou
rce: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
c
ountries', published in November 2024.
Argentina Brazil Germany Japan South Korea Spain UK USA Average of eight countries
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
22
Unpacking trust in platforms across different countries in Figure 11, we observe a relatively
consistent pattern. Search engines are generally the most widely trusted platforms for news
and political information, with video networks usually in second place. The relatively high
trust in search engines might be viewed positively if we assume that they deliver trustworthy
results, but it is important to keep in mind that search engines can return sources containing
false information and research has found that ‘online searches to evaluate misinformation can
increase its perceived veracity’ (Aslett et al. 2023). However, differences emerge with the less
trusted platforms. For instance, in Japan and South Korea, messaging apps are met with notable
scepticism, and are the least trusted platform for news and information about politics in South
Korea (15%). Interestingly, in South Korea, generative AI (24%) is more widely trusted than
social media (18%), but this is primarily because social media is viewed more sceptically here
than in any other country in the survey (the next lowest is 24% in Germany).
Figure 11. Proportion who trust each for news and information about politics
Search engines are the most trusted platform for news and information about politics in every country. Generative
AI is usually the least trusted, but messaging apps are trusted least in Japan and South Korea.
Q12. For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news or information about politics?
Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
The breakdown of trust by age, gender, and political leaning in Figure 12 reveals distinct
patterns. Search engines emerge as the most trusted source for news and information about
politics across all age groups, but trust declines −9pp with age, from 62% among the 18–24
Proportion who trust each for news
and information about politics
Search engines are the most trusted platform for news and
information about politics in every country. Generative AI is
usually the least trusted, but messaging apps are trusted least in
Japan and South Korea.
USA
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
UK
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
Germany
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
Spain
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
Brazil
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
Argentina
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
Japan
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
South Korea
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
56%
39%
31%
31%
25%
51%
31%
32%
26%
21%
55%
31%
31%
24%
20%
49%
35%
35%
30%
26%
61%
52%
43%
43%
40%
64%
51%
45%
45%
38%
54%
30%
16%
25%
20%
46%
29%
15%
18%
24%
Q12. For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust
them as a source of news or information about politics? Base: Total
sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Source: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on
platforms and the digital public sphere in eight countries', published in
November 2024.
Proportion who trust each for news
and in
formation about politics
Sea
rch engines are the most trusted platform for news and
in
formation about politics in every country. Generative AI is
usua
lly the least trusted, but messaging apps are trusted least in
Japan and South
Korea.
USA
Sea
rch engines
Video net
works
Me
ssaging apps
Social media
Gene
rative AI
UK
Sea
rch engines
Video net
works
Me
ssaging apps
Social media
Gene
rative AI
Germa
ny
Sea
rch engines
Video net
works
Me
ssaging apps
Social media
Gene
rative AI
Spain
Sea
rch engines
Video net
works
Me
ssaging apps
Social media
Gene
rative AI
B
razil
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
Argentina
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
Japan
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
South Korea
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
0% 25% 50% 75%
56%
39%
31%
31%
25%
51%
31%
32%
26%
21%
55%
31%
31%
24%
20%
49%
35%
35%
30%
26%
61%
52%
43%
43%
40%
64%
51%
45%
45%
38%
54%
30%
16%
25%
20%
46%
29%
15%
18%
24%
Q12.
For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust
them as a sou
rce of news or information about politics? Base: Total
sample in each
country ≈ 2000.
Sou
rce: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on
pl
atforms and the digital public sphere in eight countries', published in
N
ovember 2024.
23
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
age group to just 53% for those 55 and older. However, search engines are still by far the most
trusted platform in this older age group. The steepest declines by age are for video networks
and social media, which start with higher trust levels among the 18–24 group (50% and 41%,
respectively) but drop signicantly among older adults, down to 29% for video networks and
22% for social media among the over 55s. This trend may reect a generational gap in platform
familiarity, with younger users typically having grown up with many of these platforms,
alongside a preference among older individuals for traditional news sources, often seen as
more reliable and consistent. Generative AI, as a newer technology, has low trust across all age
groups, with a -17pp variation between the youngest and oldest groups – partly a result of its
limited use as an information source (Fletcher and Nielsen 2024).
Figure 12. Proportion who trust each for news and information about politics – by age group,
gender, and political leaning
Averaging across eight countries, younger people are more likely to trust all platforms for news and information
about politics. Men and those on the political right tend to have slightly higher trust on average.
Q1. Some people talk about ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’ to describe parties and politicians. (Generally, socialist parties would be
considered ‘left wing’ whilst conservative parties would be considered ‘right wing’.) With this in mind, where would you place
yourself on the following scale? Q12. For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news
or information about politics? Base: 18–24/25–34/35–44/45–54, Men/Women, and Left/Centre/Right across eight countries =
1888/3278/3519/3517/4556, 8095/8553, 2620/8871/2616.
Gender-based differences in platform trust are relatively small by comparison, though men
generally express marginally higher trust in all platforms, particularly video networks (42%
versus 33%). Political leaning shows a similar pattern, with those on both sides generally
expressing the highest trust in search engines, while other platforms receive lower trust
ratings. Trust is also higher on average among those on the right compared with those on
the left.
Figure 13 shows that higher trust among those on the right compared with the left is true of
most platforms in most countries. In the UK and Argentina, for example, every platform is
more widely trusted by those on the right compared with those on the left. But there are some
departures from this pattern. For example, search engines are more trusted by those on the
left in Germany, Brazil, and the USA. And in some cases there are no meaningful differences
between those on the right and the left – for example, with generative AI in Spain and the USA.
Proportion who trust each for news and information about politics –
by age group, gender, and political leaning
Averaging across eight countries, younger people are more likely to trust all platforms for news and information about
politics. Men and those on the political right tend to have slightly higher trust on average.
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Men Women Left Centre Right
0
20
40
60
80%
Social media networks Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
By age group By gender By political leaning
Q1. Some people talk about ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’ to describe parties and politicians. (Generally, socialist parties would be
considered ‘left wing’ whilst conservative parties would be considered ‘right wing’.) With this in mind, where would you place
yourself on the following scale? Q12. For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news or
information about politics? Base: 18-24/25-34/35-44/45-54, Men/Women, and Left/Centre/Right in across eight countries = 18–
24/25–34/35–44/45–54, Men/Women, and Left/Centre/Right across eight countries = 1888/3278/3519/3517/4556, 8095/8553,
2620/8871/2616.
Source: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight countries', published
in November 2024.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
24
Figure 13. Proportion who trust each for news and information about politics – by political leaning
Platforms tend to be trusted more by those on the political right, but there are some exceptions in some countries
where trust is higher on the left.
Q1. Some people talk about ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’ to describe parties and politicians. (Generally, socialist parties would be
considered ‘left wing’ whilst conservative parties would be considered ‘right wing’.) With this in mind, where would you place
yourself on the following scale? Q12. For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news or
information about politics? Base: Change bases Left/Centre/Right in each country. Germany = 242/1417/182, UK = 410/1092/287,
USA = 400/961/437, Brazil = 485/714/542, Spain = 594/994/274, Argentina = 165/1010/462, Japan = 74/1288/219, South
Korea = 250/1395/213.
While trust is often analysed through the lens of political attitudes or demographics, it can
also be understood through broader views about society, such as people’s general optimism or
Proportion that trust each for news and information about politics -
b
y political leaning
Though tru
st in search engines is high across people from left and right but for other platforms people usually have less
tru
st on political news and information.
Germany Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 23% 61% 37% 31% 18%
Centre 23% 54% 29% 31% 20%
Right 34% 56% 43% 41% 25%
UK Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 24% 51% 32% 28% 19%
Centre 27% 54% 32% 33% 21%
Right 35% 61% 43% 41% 28%
Brazil Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 45% 68% 54% 44% 38%
Centre 43% 65% 53% 40% 44%
Right 49% 62% 58% 49% 46%
Spain Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 33% 52% 34% 36% 27%
Centre 31% 51% 37% 36% 29%
Right 30% 52% 39% 38% 26%
Argentina Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 42% 58% 51% 45% 34%
Centre 44% 63% 49% 45% 37%
Right 58% 73% 63% 52% 48%
USA Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 25% 65% 37% 31% 27%
Centre 37% 59% 44% 35% 29%
Right 31% 49% 37% 32% 25%
Japan Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 21% 42% 32% 19% 21%
Centre 26% 57% 31% 18% 22%
Right 35% 60% 40% 20% 27%
South Korea Social media Search engines Video networks Messaging apps Generative AI
Left 19% 42% 32% 14% 20%
Centre 18% 47% 28% 15% 25%
Right 22% 58% 44% 22% 33%
Q12.
For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news or information about politics? Q1.
Whe
re would you place yourself on the left [1-3] and right [5-7] scale? Base: Change bases Left/Centre/Right in each country.
Germa
ny = 242/1417/182; UK = 410/1092/287; USA = 400/961/437; Brazil = 485/714/542; Spain = 594/994/274; Argentina =
165/1010/462; Japan = 74/1288/219; South
Korea = 250/1395/213.
25
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
pessimism about the direction they feel their country is heading in. At the aggregate level,
we nd clear variations between those with positive versus negative outlooks on the
national situation (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Proportion who trust each platform for news and information about politics – by direction
of country
On average across eight countries, people are more likely to trust news and information about politics on platforms
if they think their country is heading in the right direction.
Q12. For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news or information about politics?
Q2. Generally speaking, do you think [country] is heading in the right direction or the wrong direction? Base: Right/wrong direction
across eight countries = 4026/9121.
Figure 14 illustrates how trust in political information from digital platforms varies based on
this outlook. Those who think their country is heading in the right direction have signicantly
higher trust in each platform, with the ‘boost’ from this optimistic view being roughly the same
for all platform types. This trend also suggests that a generally negative outlook may foster a
broader scepticism around the information people consume.
We are also interested in what actions and behaviours related to politics and democracy people
think platforms have enabled. We asked respondents about whether they think platforms
in general have made certain things easier or harder. The results are displayed in Figure 15.
Averaging across eight countries, clear majorities think that platforms have made it easier
to connect with friends and family (66%), nd the information they need (63%), and connect
with likeminded people (59%). Despite sometimes intense elite and media debate focused on
problems associated with digital platforms in the intervening years, these results are broadly
similar to those documented by the Knight Foundation report in the USA in 2022, and cross-
national ndings from the Pew Research Centre2 the same year. However, when it comes to
the behaviours that are arguably most closely related to politics, only around one third think
that platforms have made it easier to participate in politics (36%) or decide who to vote for
(34%). But we should note that even in these cases the proportions are larger than those who
say platforms make these harder – it is just that most people think platforms have made no
difference. In fact, roughly similar proportions think platforms have made each of the actions
we asked about harder (around 10–15%), with variation in the proportion who think platforms
have made it neither easier nor harder.
2 https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/12/06/social-media-seen-as-mostly-good-for-democracy-across-many-nations-but-
u-s-is-a-major-outlier/
Proportion who trust each platform for news and information
about politics – by direction of country
On average across eight countries, people are more likely to trust news and information about politics on platforms
if they think their country is heading in the right direction.
Search engines 51% 69%
Video networks 34% 53%
Messaging apps 28% 47%
Social media 26% 44%
Generative AI 24% 44%
Country is
heading in the
wrong direction
|
Country is
heading in the
right direction
|
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Q12. For each of the following, to what degree do you trust or distrust them as a source of news or information about
politics? Q2. Generally speaking, do you think the [country] is heading in the right direction or the wrong direction? Base:
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
26
Figure 15. Proportion who think platforms have made each easier or harder
People think that platforms have enabled a range of positive behaviours for themselves, but also negative
behaviours in society at large. In some cases, they tend to think that platforms have not made much difference
either way.
Q28. To what extent do digital platforms in [country] make each of the following easier or harder for you personally? Q29. To what
extent do digital platforms in [country] make each of the following easier or harder for people in [country]? Base: Total sample
across eight countries = 16,758.
It is clear, then, that people recognise some of the benets of platforms to them. But with a
slightly different question about whether platforms have made it easier or harder for people
in society to do a range of broadly negative things, people tend to think platforms have made
these easier too. This is perhaps the clearest example of ‘platform ambivalence’ that we nd in
the data. More than half think that platforms have made it easier for people to say things they
wouldn’t say in person (69%), spread misinformation (69%), harass or threaten others (66%),
or spread extreme viewpoints (64%). Slightly fewer people think platforms have made it easier
to interfere with elections (48%), but again, this is much larger than the proportion who think
platforms have made it harder (12%). Many of these ndings are aligned with what has been
documented in the USA in the past by the Knight Foundation and the Pew Research Centre, and
the patterns are broadly similar across the otherwise quite different countries we cover in this
Proportion that think platforms have made each easier or
ha
rder
P
eople think that platforms have enabled a range of positive behaviours for themselves, but also
ne
gative behaviours in society at large. In some cases, they tend to think that platforms have not made
much dif
ference either way.
Easier Neither Don't know Harder
Positive
Connecting with family and friends
Finding information you need
Connecting with people who share your interests or views
Freely expressing yourself
Staying engaged with your local community
Participating in politics
Deciding who to vote for
Negative
People saying things that they wouldn’t say in person
The spreading of misinformation
People harassing or threatening others
The spreading of extreme viewpoints
People interfering with elections
66% 22% 9%
63% 22% 12%
59% 26% 11%
48% 31% 16%
47% 34% 5% 13%
36% 40% 8% 15%
34% 44% 7% 15%
69% 17% 10%
69% 16% 11%
66% 18% 11%
64% 20% 5% 11%
48% 29% 10% 12%
Q28.
To what extent do digital platforms in [country] make each of the following easier or harder for you
persona
lly? Q29. To what extent do digital platforms in [country] make each of the following easier or harder for
people in [
country]? Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
27
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
report. Most people, in every country we cover, are clearly aware of and concerned about many
of the problems associated with digital platforms.
Of course, some of these actions only apply to certain platform types (search engines do not
really allow you to freely express yourself, for example) – but the key point is that people do not
generally think platforms are entirely good or bad. Rather, they recognise that it really depends
on how people decide to make use of them.
The fact that people can use platforms to communicate in different ways raises the question of
the effect they might have on social cohesion – whether they, on balance, divide us or bring us
together. Of course, this is an empirical question and levels of social cohesion and polarisation
can be measured. However, this is also something that citizens experience and perceive for
themselves – which itself has consequences for how they behave.
On this basis we asked people whether they think platforms ‘divide us or bring us together’.
Whereas the Knight Foundation report from 2022 we build on here asked respondents whether
‘the internet’ does more to divide us than to bring us together, here, to provide a more
differentiated and nuanced view, (1) we split out the ve different platform types and (2) to
help us interpret the results, we compare them against other key institutions and groups in
society. To simplify the results, we refer to the net difference between the proportion who say
each ‘divide us’ and the proportion who say they ‘bring us together’.
Focusing on platforms rst, we see quite large differences between each type in Figure 16. On
balance, and averaging across the eight countries, people think that messaging apps (+19) and
search engines (+12) bring us together. Messaging apps are primarily used for communication
between friends, family, and other individuals people know personally, so this is perhaps
unsurprising. It is harder to know for sure what is driving the positive results for search
engines, but it could be that people think being able to quickly and efciently access a shared
body of information unites us in some sense, or it could be that search engines give us the
information we need to be able to connect with others in person (nding local events, etc.).
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
28
Figure 16. Net difference between proportion who think each of these brings us together or divides us
Averaging across eight countries, on balance people think that messaging apps and search engines ‘bring us
together’, whereas social media ‘divides us’. However, people see the news media, journalists, and politicians as
even more divisive than social media.
Q31. Thinking in general about different technologies or groups, do you think each of the following bring us together or divide us in
[country]? Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
People think that, on balance, social media divides us (-13). Like messaging apps, social media
can be used to stay in touch with people we know personally, but it can also connect us with
people we do not want to connect with – making differences and disagreements more visible
than they would otherwise be.
It is striking that, overall, people think both journalists (-29) and the news media (-27) not only
divide us but are more widely seen as divisive than social media or any of the other four platform
types that we asked about. This pattern is quite consistent across countries. The only exception
is Germany, where social media (-38) is seen as more divisive than the news media (-18) – but
even here people still see the news media as something that divides society rather than brings
people together.
We also asked respondents about their perception of political bias on platforms. More
specically, we asked whether they think each platform is systematically biased towards a
political view or not. On this issue, it is important to point out that many people (between 20%
and 30%) say ‘Don’t know’, partly reecting the fact that – as researchers in this area well know
– it is very difcult to have a proper overview of what content platforms surface on platforms
(something that may itself be seen as indicating the need for greater transparency).
Figure 17 shows that social media is the most likely to be seen as systematically biased, with
47% seeing it as such. This is greater than the 33% who do not think social media is biased in
this way. Both video networks and generative AI are just as likely to be seen as biased versus
unbiased, whereas search engines and messaging apps are less likely to be seen as biased.
Only 34% view messaging apps as systematically biased towards certain political views – likely
because the content people see there is less shaped by decisions made by algorithms designed
by the companies themselves.
Net difference between proportion who think each of
these brings us together or divides us
Averaging across eight countries, on balance people think that messaging apps and search engines
‘bring us together’, whereas social media ‘divides us’. However, people see the news media, journalists,
and politicians as even more divisive than social media.
−60
−40
−20
+20
+40
+20
−17
−27
−29
−55
Scientists
Civil society activists
News media
Journalists
Politicians
'Bring us together'
'Divide us'
+19
+12
+4
−6
−13
Messaging
apps
Search
engines
Video
networks
Generative
AI
Social
media
Q31. Thinking in general about different technologies or groups, do you think each of the following bring us
together or divide us in [country]? Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
29
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 17. Proportion who think each is systematically biased towards a political view
On average across eight countries, people are more likely to think that social media is systematically biased
towards a political view, but people are less likely to think this is true of messaging apps.
Q17G. On balance, do you feel each of the following platforms are systematically biased towards a political view, or not? Base:
Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
On balance, people in different countries tend towards certain views (Figure 18). In Brazil,
Spain, South Korea, and the USA, more people think platforms are systematically biased than
not – given that the net proportion of those who say biased is larger than the proportion
who say not biased. In Brazil, all platforms are seen as systematically biased, but in the other
three countries it’s all platforms except messaging apps. In Japan, Germany, and Argentina,
none of the platforms are seen as systematically biased, with the exception of social media in
Argentina (+13).
Figure 18. Net difference between those who think each platform is systematically biased towards
a political view and those who do not
In Brazil, Spain, the USA, and South Korea, more people think platforms are systematically biased towards
particular views than not. In Japan, Argentina, and Germany, people tend to think the opposite. Messaging apps are
only seen as systematically biased by those in Brazil.
Q17G. On balance, do you feel each of the following platforms are systematically biased towards a political view, or not? Base:
Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Proportion who think each is systematically biased towards a
political view
On average across eight countries, people are more likely to think that social media is systematically biased towards a
political view, but people are less likely to think this is true of messaging apps.
Each platform is systematically biased Don't know Each platform is not systematically biased
Social media
Video networks
Search engines
Generative AI
Messaging apps
0% 50% 100%
47% 20% 33%
39% 22% 39%
37% 21% 42%
35% 28% 37%
34% 23% 43%
Q17G. On balance, do you feel each of the following platforms are systematically biased towards a political view, or not? Base:
Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
Net difference between those who think each platform is
sy
stematically biased towards a political view and those
who do n
ot
In B
razil, Spain, the USA, and South Korea, more people think platforms are systematically biased
t
owards particular views than not. In Japan, Argentina, and Germany, people tend to think the opposite.
Me
ssaging apps are only seen as systematically biased by those in Brazil.
Countries where people think most platforms are biased
Social media Video networks Generative AI Search engines Messaging
Brazil +26 +11 +10 +9 +10
Spain +17 +5 +9 +2 −4
USA +29 +10 +12 +6 −4
South Korea +14 +7 −13 +1 −5
Neither
Social media Video networks Generative AI Search engines Messaging
UK +22 +1 +9 −2 −12
Countries where people think most platforms are not biased
Social media Video networks Generative AI Search engines Messaging
Japan ±0 −12 −15 −25 −17
Argentina +13 −6 −16 −8 −20
Germany −4 −15 −6 −20 −24
Q17G.
On balance, do you feel each of the following platforms are systematically biased towards a political view,
apps
apps
apps
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
30
We can also break down the responses to these questions by political leaning. If we average
across countries, the data suggest a surprising convergence across political lines. However, if
we look at the left/right splits within countries in Figure 19, we start to see large differences
in some cases. If we take social media as an example, people on the right in the USA are more
likely to think social media is systematically biased towards certain political views than those
on the left (69% versus 52%), with the opposite true in Argentina (48% versus 71%).
Figure 19. Proportion who think social media is systematically biased towards a political view – by
political leaning
In most countries there are only small differences between those on the left and those on the right in terms of
perceptions of bias from social media. But in Argentina, those on the left are more likely to perceive bias, with the
same true for those on the right in the USA.
Proportion who think social media is systematically
biased
towards a political view – by political leaning
In mo
st countries there are only small differences between those on the left and those on the right in
t
erms of perceptions of bias from social media. But in Argentina, those on the left are more likely to
pe
rceive bias, with the same true for those on the right in the USA.
Social media is systematically biased towards certain political views Don't know
Social media is not systematically biased towards certain political views
Argentina
Left
Centre
Right
Brazil
Left
Centre
Right
Germany
Left
Centre
Right
Japan
Left
Centre
Right
South Korea
Left
Centre
Right
Spain
Left
Centre
Right
UK
Left
Centre
Right
USA
Left
Centre
Right
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
71% 6% 23%
51% 10% 38%
48% 7% 45%
66% 9% 25%
57% 10% 33%
55% 10% 35%
40% 15% 45%
35% 23% 42%
42% 18% 40%
53% 16% 32%
38% 22% 40%
47% 15% 38%
54% 12% 34%
49% 15% 36%
59% 8% 34%
55% 19% 26%
47% 18% 35%
51% 13% 37%
54% 23% 23%
49% 23% 28%
55% 12% 34%
52% 16% 33%
55% 16% 29%
69% 11% 20%
Proportion who think social media is systematically
biased
towards a political view – by political leaning
In mo
st countries there are only small differences between those on the left and those on the right in
t
erms of perceptions of bias from social media. But in Argentina, those on the left are more likely to
pe
rceive bias, with the same true for those on the right in the USA.
Social media is systematically biased towards certain political views Don't know
Social media is not systematically biased towards certain political views
Argentina
Left
Centre
Right
Brazil
Left
Centre
Right
Germany
Left
Centre
Right
Japan
Left
Centre
Right
South Korea
Left
Centre
Right
Spain
Left
Centre
Right
UK
Left
Centre
Right
USA
Left
Centre
Right
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
71% 6% 23%
51% 10% 38%
48% 7% 45%
66% 9% 25%
57% 10% 33%
55% 10% 35%
40% 15% 45%
35% 23% 42%
42% 18% 40%
53% 16% 32%
38% 22% 40%
47% 15% 38%
54% 12% 34%
49% 15% 36%
59% 8% 34%
55% 19% 26%
47% 18% 35%
51% 13% 37%
54% 23% 23%
49% 23% 28%
55% 12% 34%
52% 16% 33%
55% 16% 29%
69% 11% 20%
31
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
We can also break down the responses to these questions by political leaning. If we average
across countries, the data suggest a surprising convergence across political lines. However, if
we look at the left/right splits within countries in Figure 19, we start to see large differences
in some cases. If we take social media as an example, people on the right in the USA are more
likely to think social media is systematically biased towards certain political views than those
on the left (69% versus 52%), with the opposite true in Argentina (48% versus 71%).
Figure 19. Proportion who think social media is systematically biased towards a political view – by
political leaning
In most countries there are only small differences between those on the left and those on the right in terms of
perceptions of bias from social media. But in Argentina, those on the left are more likely to perceive bias, with the
same true for those on the right in the USA.
Proportion who think social media is systematically
biased
towards a political view – by political leaning
In mo
st countries there are only small differences between those on the left and those on the right in
t
erms of perceptions of bias from social media. But in Argentina, those on the left are more likely to
pe
rceive bias, with the same true for those on the right in the USA.
Social media is systematically biased towards certain political views Don't know
Social media is not systematically biased towards certain political views
Argentina
Left
Centre
Right
Brazil
Left
Centre
Right
Germany
Left
Centre
Right
Japan
Left
Centre
Right
South Korea
Left
Centre
Right
Spain
Left
Centre
Right
UK
Left
Centre
Right
USA
Left
Centre
Right
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
71% 6% 23%
51% 10% 38%
48% 7% 45%
66% 9% 25%
57% 10% 33%
55% 10% 35%
40% 15% 45%
35% 23% 42%
42% 18% 40%
53% 16% 32%
38% 22% 40%
47% 15% 38%
54% 12% 34%
49% 15% 36%
59% 8% 34%
55% 19% 26%
47% 18% 35%
51% 13% 37%
54% 23% 23%
49% 23% 28%
55% 12% 34%
52% 16% 33%
55% 16% 29%
69% 11% 20%
Proportion who think social media is systematically
biased
towards a political view – by political leaning
In mo
st countries there are only small differences between those on the left and those on the right in
t
erms of perceptions of bias from social media. But in Argentina, those on the left are more likely to
pe
rceive bias, with the same true for those on the right in the USA.
Social media is systematically biased towards certain political views Don't know
Social media is not systematically biased towards certain political views
Argentina
Left
Centre
Right
Brazil
Left
Centre
Right
Germany
Left
Centre
Right
Japan
Left
Centre
Right
South Korea
Left
Centre
Right
Spain
Left
Centre
Right
UK
Left
Centre
Right
USA
Left
Centre
Right
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
71% 6% 23%
51% 10% 38%
48% 7% 45%
66% 9% 25%
57% 10% 33%
55% 10% 35%
40% 15% 45%
35% 23% 42%
42% 18% 40%
53% 16% 32%
38% 22% 40%
47% 15% 38%
54% 12% 34%
49% 15% 36%
59% 8% 34%
55% 19% 26%
47% 18% 35%
51% 13% 37%
54% 23% 23%
49% 23% 28%
55% 12% 34%
52% 16% 33%
55% 16% 29%
69% 11% 20%
Q1. Some people talk about ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’ to describe parties and politicians. (Generally, socialist parties would be
considered ‘left wing’ whilst conservative parties would be considered ‘right wing’.) With this in mind, where would you place
yourself on the following scale? Q17G. On balance, do you feel each of the following platforms are systematically biased towards
a political view, or not? Base: Left/Centre/Right in Germany = 242/1417/182, UK = 410/1092/287, USA = 400/961/437, Brazil =
485/714/542, Spain = 594/994/274, Argentina = 165/1010/462, Japan = 74/1288/219, South Korea = 250/1395/213.
Despite the fact that less than half think that platforms are biased, when we asked people
whether they are concerned that information on each platform is systematically biased towards
certain political views, most said that they were either very or somewhat concerned (Figure
20). Repeating the pattern we saw in the previous chart, people are more likely to be concerned
about the information on social media, and less likely to be concerned about the information on
messaging apps. Despite a well-documented ‘third person effect’ in some areas, whereby people
tend to think that everyone else is inuenced by the media but not themselves, we do not nd
different levels of concern when we asked about the ‘information you see’ and the ‘information
other people see’. These patterns are repeated across all eight countries in the survey.
Figure 20. Proportion concerned that the information on each platform is systematically biased
towards a political view
Averaging across eight countries, most people are somewhat or very concerned that what they see on platforms is
systematically biased towards certain political views – especially on social media. However, people are only slightly
more concerned about the information other people see.
Q27. When thinking about [platform], how concerned, if at all, are you about each of the following? Base: Messaging apps = 3350,
Search engines = 3347, Video networks = 3354, Generative AI = 3351, Social media = 3356. Note: Respondents were randomly
asked about one of the platforms.
This pattern is replicated across all eight countries when we look at them individually, though
levels of concern are generally higher in Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Spain. There are
also no real differences by age and gender.
Proportion concerned that the information on each
pl
atform is systematically biased towards certain political
vi
ews
A
veraging across eight countries, most people are somewhat or very concerned that what they see on
pl
atforms is systematically biased towards certain political views - especially on social media. However,
people a
re only slightly more concerned about the information other people see.
Messaging apps 56% 60%
Search engines 62%62%
Video networks 63% 65%
Generative AI 64% 65%
Social media 68% 70%
The information
I see on…
|
The information
other people see on…
|
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Q27.
When thinking about [platform], how concerned, if at all, are you about each of the following? Base:
Gene
rative AI = 3351, Messaging apps = 3350, Search engines = 3347, Social media = 3356, Video platforms =
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
32
Chapter 3: Platform Policy, Responsibility, and
Governance
Over the past two decades, expert thinking around the internet and digital platforms has
shifted dramatically. Once envisioned as a borderless cyberspace beyond national regulation,
these platforms are now subject to increasing oversight (Flew and Wilding 2021). The rapid
growth of platforms has raised concerns about their governance, responsibility, and impact
on the public interest, prompting liberal democracies to craft new regulatory frameworks
addressing disinformation, hate speech, and other issues.
While digital platforms empower individuals to create public value, they can also foster
harmful content, polarisation, and ideological conict, challenging democratic norms and
public values (UNESCO 2023). Many scholars argue that tackling these challenges requires
moving from a single-actor responsibility model to a collaborative governance approach
involving platforms, users, and public institutions (Helberger et al. 2018).
Given the public’s crucial role as users, this chapter explores perceptions of platform
policy and governance, examining whether the public view governance as a shared
responsibility, their attitudes towards data collection, and their opinions on accountability for
misinformation – key elements in fostering collaborative and responsive platform regulation.
To assess whether public concerns about digital platforms, highlighted in Figure 21, align
with the attention policymakers give to these issues, we asked respondents if they believe
the policymakers in the respective countries are paying enough attention to digital platform-
related concerns. Figure 21 illustrates that, on average across eight countries, more than
one third of respondents feel that areas such as misinformation (39%), generative AI misuse
(38%), and tech companies’ handling of personal data (36%) are getting too little attention
from policymakers. Notably, there are signicant country-level differences, with over 40% of
respondents in Brazil – where respondents are most likely to think too little attention is being
paid – saying their policymakers pay too little attention to various platform-related issues,
compared with under a quarter in Japan, where for many issues people think the amount of
attention these issues get is ‘about right’. These ndings highlight diverse expectations for
regulatory focus, particularly concerning misinformation and data privacy.
33
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 21. Proportion who think elected ofcials and policymakers are paying too little attention to
each issue
On average across eight countries, public opinion is roughly evenly split between those who think elected ofcials
and policymakers are paying too much and too little attention to most issues. In Brazil, people are more likely to
think there is too little attention, whereas in Japan fewer people think this.
Q16. Do you think elected ofcials and policymakers in [country] are paying too much, too little, or about the right amount of
attention to each of the following issues? Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
a
re paying too little attention to each issue
On
average across eight countries, public opinion is roughly evenly split between those who think
people a
re more likely to think there is too little attention, whereas in Japan fewer people think this.
Too
little About
right Don't
know Too
much
Brazil (most likely to say too little attention)
The size and influence of major technology companies
The use of personal data by major technology companies
The spread of misinformation online
Technology companies limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely online
Government regulations limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely online
The use of generative AI to create fake content
Eight-country average
The size and influence of major technology companies
The use of personal data by major technology companies
The spread of misinformation online
Technology companies limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely online
Government regulations limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely online
The use of generative AI to create fake content
Japan (least likely to say too little attention)
The size and influence of major technology companies
The use of personal data by major technology companies
The spread of misinformation online
Technology companies limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely online
Government regulations limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely online
The use of generative AI to create fake content
42% 20% 8% 29%
45% 19% 8% 28%
47% 16% 7% 30%
42% 20% 9% 29%
41% 19% 9% 31%
48% 14% 9% 29%
32% 28% 11% 28%
36% 25% 10% 29%
39% 19% 8% 34%
31% 30% 13% 26%
29% 30% 13% 29%
38% 20% 12% 30%
16% 35% 20% 29%
18% 30% 19% 32%
23% 17% 13% 47%
17% 38% 24% 21%
18% 35% 23% 23%
22% 22% 23% 33%
Q16.
right amount
of attention, to each of the following issues? Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
34
However, public opinion regarding policymakers’ attention appears to be the function of,
among other things, how much they trust politics in their respective country. Figure 22 shows
that, on average across eight countries, individuals who ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’ distrust
politics in their country are more likely to believe policymakers are not addressing key
platform-related issues sufciently. For instance, 47% of respondents who distrust politics
feel that issues like misinformation and generative AI misuse are overlooked by policymakers,
compared with only 37% and 34% respectively among those who trust politics. This trend
extends across other issues, such as data privacy and the inuence of tech companies,
indicating a correlation between political trust and expectations for regulatory attention on
digital platform issues.
Figure 22. Proportion who think elected ofcials and policymakers are paying too little attention to
each issue – by trust in politics
On average across eight countries, those who distrust politics in their country are more likely to think that too little
attention is being given to each issue.
Q16. Do you think elected ofcials and policymakers in [country] are paying too much, or too little, or about the right amount of
attention to each of the following issues? Q6A. Generally thinking, how much do you trust or distrust the politics in [country]?
Base: Those who trust/distrust politics across eight countries: 3609/10,026.
Figure 23 builds on this by asking respondents who they think should set content policies –
platforms or national governments – across different types of digital platforms. While a clear
majority favour platforms themselves taking on this responsibility for social media, search
engines, video networks, and messaging apps (with 61–63% in support), there is a notable
shift in opinion when it comes to generative AI. Here, only 48% believe platforms should hold
primary responsibility, while 39% think national governments should have a greater role. This
could be because people generally have a more negative view of generative AI – as we have
seen at various points in this report – but it could also be that people see a greater role for
government intervention when it comes to new and emerging technologies.
are paying too little attention to each issue – by trust in
politics
On average across eight countries, those who distrust politics in their country are more likely to think
that too little attention is being given to each issue.
Trust
in politics Distrust
in politics
The sp
read of misinformation online
The use
of generative AI to create fake content
The use
of personal data by major technology companies
The si
ze and influence of major technology companies
T
echnology companies limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely online
G
overnment regulations limiting people’s ability to express themselves freely online
38%
47%
37%
49%
34%
47%
30%
42%
30%
42%
27%
37%
Q6A Generally thinking, how much do you trust or distrust the politics in [country]? Q16. Do you think elected
each of the following issues? Base: Those who trust/distrust politics across eight countries: 3609/10,026.
Source: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
countries', published in November 2024.
35
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 23. Proportion who think platforms should have greater responsibility for creating
their policies
In every country, most people think it should be platforms’ own responsibility to create their policies – however,
people see a larger role for national government in the case of generative AI.
Q17A. In your opinion, who should have greater responsibility for policies or guidance when it comes to what content is allowed
on each of the following platforms? Which of the following comes closest to your view? Base: Total sample across eight countries =
16,758.
The public generally preferring most kinds of platforms – despite the problems associated
with them – to take the greater responsibility for policies or guidelines, rather than the
government doing so, is in line with what the Knight Foundation found in its 2022 report in
the USA. But, as the Reuters Institute Digital News Report (Newman et al. 2024) has previously
highlighted, there are meaningful differences in public opinion between Europe and the USA
regarding the role of government in regulating digital platforms. Here, we disaggregate the
data to examine preferences for regulatory responsibility on either side of the Atlantic. Figure
24 shows that there is a general preference for platforms to self-regulate rather than relying
on government intervention in both Europe and the USA, particularly for social media, search
engines, and video networks. However, generative AI stands out as an exception to this trend.
In Germany, the USA, and the UK, opinions are more divided, with a signicant portion of
respondents favouring government oversight (ranging from 43% to 51%) over self-regulation.
In Spain, a slight majority still support platform-led regulation even for generative AI, but with
government oversight receiving stronger support than for other platforms. This variation in
opinion underscores the complexities of regulating digital platforms and highlights a potential
divergence in governance preferences between regions.
Proportion who think platforms should have greater
r
esponsibility for creating their policies
In
every country, most people think it should be platforms’ own responsibility to create their policies –
h
owever, people see a larger role for national government in the case of generative AI.
Platform should have greater responsibility Don't know
National
government should have greater responsibility
Video networks
Search engines
Messaging apps
Social media
Generative AI
0% 50% 100%
63% 12% 25%
62% 12% 26%
62% 13% 25%
61% 11% 28%
48% 13% 39%
Q17
A. In your opinion, who should have greater responsibility for policies or guidance when it comes to what
c
ontent is allowed on each of the following platforms? Which of the following comes closest to your view? Base:
T
otal sample across eight countries = 16,758.
Sou
rce: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
36
Figure 24. Proportion who think platforms should have greater responsibility for creating
their policies
Across platforms a majority think that platforms should self-regulate instead of governments – but this is not true
for generative AI, where opinion is split or people prefer governments to regulate generative AI, except in Spain.
Q17A. In your opinion, who should have greater responsibility for policies or guidance when it comes to what content is allowed on
each of the following platforms? Which of the following comes closest to your view? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Given the heightened concern over the specic role of social media in misinformation and
manipulation – underscored by the frequent appearances of tech CEOs in Congressional
hearings on accountability and platform responsibility3, and increasingly intense political
scrutiny of individual companies and sometimes the whole sector in top political circles in
Brazil, the European Union, and elsewhere – we also explore variation in respondents’ views by
political leaning. Figure 25 shows that, on average, a slightly larger proportion of right-leaning
respondents (66%) support self-regulation by social media platforms compared with their left-
leaning counterparts (59%). In Europe, this trend is particularly evident in the UK, where there
is a 13pp difference between right-leaning (57%) and left-leaning (44%) individuals. Similarly,
in Latin America, Argentina shows a 12pp gap (77% right versus 65% left), and Brazil a 13pp
difference (74% right versus 61% left). Conversely, Japan and South Korea exhibit minimal
differences between political groups. These ndings align with the broader tendency of right-
leaning individuals to support less government intervention and favour self-regulation (or,
in some cases, individual responsibility), reecting their general preference for limited state
involvement in various domains (Janoff-Bulman 2023; Oreskes and Conway 2022).
3 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/technology/zuckerberg-dorsey-and-pichai-testify-about-disinformation.html
Germany Social media
Search
engines
Video
networks
Messaging
apps
Generative
AI
Platform should have greater responsibility 52% 57% 54% 56% 40%
National government should have greater
responsibility 34% 27% 29% 28% 43%
Don't know 15% 17% 17% 17% 17%
Spain Social media Search
engines
Video
networks
Messaging
apps
Generative
AI
Platform should have greater responsibility 58% 58% 59% 58% 47%
National government should have greater
responsibility 28% 28% 26% 26% 38%
Don't know 14% 15% 16% 16% 15%
UK Social media Search
engines
Video
networks
Messaging
apps
Generative
AI
Platform should have greater responsibility 51% 54% 54% 57% 36%
National government should have greater
responsibility 40% 34% 34% 32% 51%
Don't know 9% 12% 12% 11% 13%
USA Social media Search
engines
Video
networks
Messaging
apps
Generative
AI
Platform should have greater responsibility 57% 61% 59% 62% 38%
National government should have greater
responsibility 30% 25% 25% 22% 46%
Don't know 14% 14% 16% 17% 16%
Proportion who think platforms should have greater responsibility
for creating their policies
Across platforms a majority think that platforms should self-regulate instead of governments – but this is not true for
generative AI, where opinion is split or people prefer governments to regulate generative AI, except in Spain.
Q17A. In your opinion, who should have greater responsibility for policies or guidance when it comes to what content is allowed on
each of the following platforms? Which of the following comes closest to your view? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
37
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 25. Proportion who think platforms should have greater responsibility for creating their
policies – by political leaning
In most countries, people on the right are slightly more likely to think social media networks (as opposed to
government) should set their policies.
Q17A. In your opinion, who should have greater responsibility for policies or guidance when it comes to what content is allowed on
social media networks? Base: Sample changes on left/right basis. UK = 312/309, Germany = 298/324, USA = 321/403, South Korea
= 375/348, Brazil = 431/549, Argentina = 259/636, Spain = 535/364, Japan = 154/371.
We next explore respondents’ views on identity verication across various digital platforms.
In other words, should people have to provide proof of their identity when registering to use
different platforms? Figure 26 shows that for most platforms, people do indeed think that users
should have to provide proof. Most people support identity verication for social media (69%),
messaging apps (65%), video networks (61%), and generative AI (61%), perhaps reecting the
fact that 69% are concerned that people say things online that they would not say in person
(see Chapter 3), but also limited concern about potential misuse of personal data or risks of
online data theft. However, opinions are divided on search engines, with 48% in favour and
41% opposed, suggesting that people perceive search engines as purely functional tools for
accessing information rather than as platforms that require personal identity disclosure.
Proportion who think platforms should have greater responsibility for
creating their policies – by political leaning
In most countries, people on the right are slightly more likely to think social media networks (as opposed to government) should set
their policies.
Left Right
Eight-country average
UK
Germany
USA
Spain
Brazil
Argentina
South Korea
Japan
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
59%
66%
44%
57%
50%
56%
53%
62%
58%
64%
61%
74%
65%
77%
69%
72%
70%
69%
Q17A. In your opinion, who should have greater responsibility for policies or guidance when it comes to what content is allowed on social
media networks? Base: Sample changes on left/right basis. UK = 312/309, Germany = 298/324, USA = 321/403, South Korea = 375/348, Brazil
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
38
Figure 26. Proportion who think people should have to prove their identity when registering to use
each platform
On average across eight countries, the majority hold the view that people should provide proof of their identity when
creating an account to use each platform – but such opinion is split for search engines.
Q17C. On balance, when creating an account on the following platforms, do you think people should have to provide proof of their
identity, or not? Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
Support for the idea of proving one’s identity is consistently lower in Japan, where fewer than
half typically think that users should have to do this – though this is still a more common view
than the opposite. And when it comes to using search engines in Japan, a clear majority think
that people should not have to prove they are who they say they are in order to use them.
Figure 27. Proportion who think people should have to prove their identity when registering to use
each platform
In most countries and for most platforms, people think that users should have to prove their identity. Support for
this view is lowest in Japan, where fewer than half agree (with the exception of social media).
Q17C. On balance, when creating an account on the following platforms, do you think people should have to provide proof of their
identity, or not? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Proportion who think people should have to prove their identity
when registering to use each platform
On average across eight countries, the majority hold the view that people should provide proof of their identity when
creating an account to use each platform – but such opinion is split for search engines.
People should have to provide proof of their identity Don't know
People
should not
have to provide proof of their identity
Social media
Me
ssaging apps
Video net
works
Gene
rative AI
Sea
rch engines
0% 50% 100%
69% 9% 22%
65% 11% 24%
61% 11% 28%
61% 14% 25%
48% 11% 41%
Q17C. On balance, when creating an account on the following platforms, do you think people should have to provide proof of
their identity, or not? Base: Total sample across eight countries = 16,758.
Proportion who think people should have to prove their identity
when registering to use each platform
In most countries and for most platforms, people think that users should have to prove their identity. Support for this
view is lowest in Japan, where fewer than half agree (with the exception of social media).
Japan
Social media Search
engines
Video
networks
Messaging
apps
Generative
AI
People
should have to provide proof of their
identity
50% 30% 45% 46% 45%
People
should not have to provide proof of
their identity
37% 58% 41% 36% 36%
Don't know
14% 13% 14% 18% 19%
USA
Social media Search
engines
Video
networks
Messaging
apps
Generative
AI
People
should have to provide proof of their
identity
63% 41% 54% 57% 59%
People
should not have to provide proof of
their identity
24% 45% 31% 29% 26%
Don't know
12% 14% 15% 14% 16%
Argentina
Social media Search
engines
Video
networks
Messaging
apps
Generative
AI
People
should have to provide proof of their
identity
79% 52% 64% 77% 62%
People
should not have to provide proof of
their identity
17% 41% 30% 17% 29%
Don't know
4% 7% 7% 5% 9%
Q17C. On balance, when creating an account on the following platforms, do you think people should have to provide proof of their
identity, or not? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Source: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight countries', published
in November 2024.
39
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Continuing the exploration of public attitudes towards platform governance, we now turn
to preferences on privacy control. The results in Figure 28 indicate a split opinion. For each
platform, a substantial portion of respondents favour platforms enforcing only strong settings,
with gures ranging from 43% for search engines to 48% for generative AI. But at the same
time, an almost equal proportion believe users should have autonomy to set their own privacy
preferences. This near-even divide reects ongoing public ambivalence about who should hold
the reins over privacy, and the fact that this is one of the few issues where people do not have
different views by platform suggests that it is not something that is front of mind for many
people. There is some country variation beneath the averages, however. Across all platforms,
respondents in South Korea are more likely to favour only strong privacy options being offered
to users, with respondents in Japan, Argentina, and the USA usually favouring the idea of
putting privacy in the hands of users.
Figure 28. Proportion who think each platform should only offer strong privacy settings
On average across eight countries, and for all platforms, opinion is split on whether platforms or users should be
allowed to set their privacy settings.
Q17E. In your opinion, how do you think privacy settings on each of the following platforms should work? Base: Total sample
across eight countries = 16,758.
Finally, because the overwhelming majority expressed their concern about false and misleading
information (see Chapter 2), we asked respondents about who they believe should be held
responsible. Figure 29 shows that, overall, a majority in each country believe that platforms
should take responsibility, with especially high support in South Korea (77% for social media
and 79% for video networks) and Japan (73% for both social media and video networks). In
the UK and the USA, views are also strong but show slightly more ambivalence. In the UK,
for instance, 75% think social media should be responsible, while 16% disagree and 9% are
undecided. Similarly, in the USA, 65% support responsibility for social media platforms, with a
higher proportion (24%) believing that they should not be held accountable.
Proportion who think each platform should only offer strong
privacy settings
On average across eight countries, and for all platforms, opinion is split on whether platforms or users should be
allowed to set their privacy settings.
Each platform should only allow strong privacy settings Don't know
Each
user should be able to set their own privacy settings
Generative AI
Social media
Messaging apps
Video networks
Search engines
0% 50% 100%
48% 13% 39%
46% 9% 45%
46% 10% 44%
45% 11% 44%
43% 11% 46%
Q17E. In your opinion, how do you think privacy settings on each of the following platforms should work? Base: Total sample
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
40
Figure 29. Proportion who think platforms should be held responsible for showing potentially false
information from users
The majority of respondents in every country believe platforms should be held responsible for false and misleading
information from users.
Q17D. In your opinion, should each of the following platforms be held responsible or not responsible for showing potentially false
information that users post? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Proportion who think platforms should be held
responsible for showing potentially false information from
users
The majority of respondents in every country believe platforms should be held responsible for false and
misleading information from users.
UK Social media Video networks Messaging apps
Platform should be held responsible 75% 74% 66%
Platform should not be held
responsible 16% 16% 24%
Don't know 9% 11% 10%
USA Social media Video networks Messaging apps
Platform should be held responsible 65% 63% 58%
Platform should not be held
responsible 24% 25% 27%
Don't know 11% 12% 15%
Germany Social media Video networks Messaging apps
Platform should be held responsible 64% 61% 58%
Platform should not be held
responsible 22% 22% 25%
Don't know 14% 16% 17%
Spain Social media Video networks Messaging apps
Platform should be held responsible 70% 69% 62%
Platform should not be held
responsible 20% 21% 27%
Don't know 10% 11% 11%
Brazil Social media Video networks Messaging apps
Platform should be held responsible 74% 72% 72%
Platform should not be held
responsible 19% 20% 21%
Don't know 7% 7% 7%
Argentina Social media Video networks Messaging apps
Platform should be held responsible 69% 66% 64%
Platform should not be held
responsible 25% 27% 29%
Don't know 5% 6% 7%
Japan Social media Video networks Messaging apps
Platform should be held responsible 73% 73% 64%
Platform should not be held
responsible 15% 15% 19%
Don't know 12% 12% 17%
South Korea Social media Video networks Messaging apps
Platform should be held responsible 77% 79% 73%
Platform should not be held
responsible 15% 13% 18%
Don't know 7% 8% 10%
Q17D. In your opinion, should each of the following platforms be held responsible or not responsible for showing
potentially false information that users post? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Source: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
41
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
The pattern remains consistent across most countries, with video networks generally receiving
similar levels of responsibility expectations as social media, though messaging apps see more
variability. This consensus highlights a public expectation for platforms to actively manage
misinformation, especially in Asian countries, which show the strongest levels of support. It
also reects some variability in attitudes towards responsibility, with developed countries like
the USA showing more divided opinions.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
42
Chapter 4: Public Perception of Platforms More Generally
This nal chapter focuses on what the public think about platforms. In Chapter 2 we explored
how people see the effect of platforms on democracy specically, but here we focus on what
people think of platforms in a more general sense (though, of course, for some their perceived
impact upon democracy may shape their overall view.) More specically, we look at whether
people think different platforms have a positive or negative effect on individuals and society,
and how concerned people are about some of the problems associated with the contemporary
information environment (such as misinformation, the power of technology companies, and
freedom of expression).
We start by exploring respondents’ overall perceptions of the impact of online platforms,
both personally and on society. This essentially asks respondents to weigh up the different
advantages and disadvantages of platforms in these two areas. When it comes to impact upon
them personally, some of these will probably have nothing to do with politics and democracy.
But when considering the impact on society, respondents are perhaps more likely to be
thinking in democratic terms, alongside other factors.
We analyse the data by looking at the net difference between the proportion who say each
platform has a ‘somewhat positive’ or ‘very positive’ effect on them or society and the
proportion who say ‘somewhat negative’ or ‘very negative’. When we do this, we see quite
large differences by platform and by country, but in most cases we nd evidence that people
see a net positive impact. Despite the reservations that people have when it comes to the use
of platforms for news and information about politics, they clearly also recognise the wider
benets - reecting what we call ‘platform ambivalence’.
Figure 30 shows that, in all eight countries, search engines are seen as having the most
positive net impact, both personally and on society, of any platform. Even in Germany, where
people tend to be more negative about the impact of platforms generally, large proportions
think that search engines have a positive impact – much larger than the proportion who think
the opposite (+47pp and +38pp).
Video networks and messaging apps are seen, on balance, as positive for people personally and
for society – although this varies a lot by country. Messaging apps are viewed very positively
in Argentina and Brazil, and as we have already seen, people in Japan and South Korea have a
more negative view of messaging apps.
When it comes to social media and generative AI, we start to see examples where people, on
balance, think there is a negative impact or views are evenly split. In Germany, people clearly
think that social media has a negative effect on society (-27pp), with the same true to a lesser
extent in the UK (-12pp), the USA (-8pp), and South Korea (-7pp). In Germany they also think
that social media has a negative effect on them personally (-5pp) – though in the other seven
countries people think social media is positive for them – especially in Argentina (+44pp) and
Brazil (+38pp). People in Germany also think that generative AI is bad for society on balance
(-9pp), and views are split in the UK (-) and the USA (+2pp).
43
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Figure 30. Net difference between proportion who think each platform has a positive or
negative effect
In several countries people think social media has a positive effect on them but a negative effect on society. Search
engines, video networks, and messaging apps are seen as having a net positive effect on them personally and on society.
Q13. To what extent do you believe each of the following has a positive or negative effect on you? Q14. To what extent do you
believe each of the following has a positive or negative effect on society in [country]? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Net difference between proportion who think each
platform has a positive or negative effect
In several countries people think social media has a positive effect on them but a negative effect on
society. Search engines, video platforms, and messaging apps are seen as having a net positive effect on
them personally and on society.
Net effect on you personally Net effect on society
Argentina +44 +26
Brazil +38 +24
Germany −5 −27
Japan +16 ±0
South Korea +8 −7
Spain +23 +3
UK +16 −12
USA +18 −8
Net effect on you personally Net effect on society
Argentina +70 +64
Brazil +63 +60
Germany +47 +38
Japan +56 +47
South Korea +51 +43
Spain +58 +52
UK +58 +53
USA +55 +49
Net effect on you personally Net effect on society
Argentina +63 +52
Brazil +57 +51
Germany +24 +6
Japan +37 +21
South Korea +36 +19
Spain +42 +32
UK +36 +21
USA +40 +26
Net effect on you personally Net effect on society
Argentina +63 +58
Brazil +55 +45
Germany +30 +16
Japan +11 +8
South Korea +12 +7
Spain +49 +41
UK +49 +34
USA +31 +21
Net effect on you personally Net effect on society
Argentina +37 +34
Brazil +34 +32
Germany ±0 −9
+17 +15
South Korea +27 +24
Spain +21 +14
UK +5 ±0
USA +7 +2
Japan
Social media
Search engines
Video networks
Messaging apps
Generative AI
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
44
Across the board, people tend to think that platforms have a more positive effect on them than
on society, though the differences are not huge. While there is some evidence of a version
of the ‘third person effect’ whereby people worry more about the impact on others than on
themselves, in general people seem to assume the positives about platforms they experience
are experienced by others, ultimately beneting society.
If we look at the proportion who say they think each platform has a positive effect on society
(instead of the net difference we used previously) by age and gender, distinct patterns emerge
(Figure 31). Age, again, matters for positive evaluations of platforms, with younger groups
generally expressing more favourable opinions. As age increases, positive perceptions for
platforms like video networks, messaging apps, social media, and generative AI decline. Search
engines, however, maintain high positive ratings across all age groups. When looking at gender
differences, perceptions are often similar, with no substantial disparities for social media,
messaging apps, and search engines. However, differences emerge for specic platforms. Men
are slightly more likely than women to view video networks (+5pp) and generative AI (+8pp)
positively. These ndings highlight generational and subtle gendered divides, at least for some
platforms, in how people evaluate the societal impact of technology.
Figure 31. Proportion who think each platform has a positive effect on society – by age group
and gender
On average across eight countries, younger people are more likely to think each platform (with the exception of
search engines) has a positive effect on society.
Q14. Thinking about the impact of platforms on society, to what extent do you believe each of the following has a positive or
negative effect on society in [country]? Base = 18–24/25–34/35–44/45–54/55+ and Men/Women = 1888/3278/3519/3517/4556
and 8095/8553.
This overall positive view of platform impact does not mean that people are not concerned
about some of the societal issues that surround them. Quite the opposite, in fact. As Figure
32 shows, in every country surveyed, a clear majority are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ concerned over
various issues, with over two thirds of respondents concerned across each category. The spread
of misinformation online tops the list, with 87% expressing concern, followed closely by the
related concern about the use of generative AI to create fake content (84%). Concerns about
personal data usage by major tech companies are also high at 80%. By contrast, concern around
issues to do with freedom of expression, though pronounced, are lower, highlighting that
Proportion who say each platform has positive impact on society - by age
g
roup and gender
On
average across eight countries, younger respondents tend to view digital platforms, particularly search engines and video websites, as
h
aving a more positive impact on society compared to older age groups, who are less likely to hold this view, especially towards social
media and
generative AI.
18-24 25-34 35-45 44-54 55+ Men Women
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
Search
engine Video networks
Messaging
apps Social
media Generative
AI
By age group By gender
Q14.
Thinking about the impact of platforms on society, to what extent do you believe each of the following has a positive or negative effect on society
in the [
country]? Base = 18-24/25-34/35-44/45-54/55+ and Men/Women = 1888/3278/3519/3517/4556 and 8095/8553.
45
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
misinformation and data privacy are more likely to be front of mind for respondents. Concern
is lower in some countries – most notably Japan, where concern over each issue is about 15pp
lower than the eight-country average.
Figure 32. Proportion who are very or somewhat concerned about each issue
On average across eight countries, two thirds or more are concerned about each issue. Concern about issues to do
with freedom of expression is lower in Japan.
Q15. To what extent, if at all, are you concerned about each of the following? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Concern over these issues does not vary much by whether or not people use platforms for news
and information about politics – though platform users tend to be slightly more concerned.
Taking social media as an example, 83% of those who do not use social media for politics say
they are very or somewhat concerned about ‘the spread of misinformation online’, but this rises
to 90% among those that do use it. There may be something of a ceiling effect here, but it also
highlights that people often continue to make use of platforms for news and information about
politics even if they are concerned about some of the potential drawbacks.
Proportion who are very or somewhat concerned about each issue (Copy)
On
average across eight countries, two thirds or more are concerned about each issue. Concern about issues to do with freedom of
e
xpression is lower in Japan.
The spread of misinformation online
The use of generative AI to create fake content
The use of personal data by major technology
companies
The size and influence of major technology
companies
Technology companies limiting people’s ability to
express themselves freely online
Government regulations limiting people’s ability to
express themselves freely online
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
87%
84%
80%
69%
66%
65%
Misinformation concerns
Platform power concerns
Freedom of expression concerns
Q15.
To what extent, if at all, are you concerned about each of the following? Base: Total sample in each country ≈ 2000.
Sou
rce: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight countries', published in
N
ovember 2024.
Average of eight countries
Argentina Brazil Germany Japan South Korea Spain UK USA
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
46
Figure 33. Proportion who are somewhat or very concerned about the issues around misinformation
and freedom of speech – by political leaning
On average across eight countries, left-leaning individuals are more concerned about misinformation and AI-
generated fake content than those on the right, while those on the right are more worried about government and
tech company restrictions on free speech than those on the left.
Q1. Some people talk about ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’ to describe parties and politicians. (Generally, socialist parties would be
considered ‘left wing’ whilst conservative parties would be considered ‘right wing’.) With this in mind, where would you place
yourself on the following scale? Q15. To what extent, if at all, are you concerned about each of the following? Base: Left/Centre/
Right across eight countries = 4622/4339/4830.
Concern about these issues remains high across all groups in society, but we do see some
differences by political ideology (Figure 33). Concerns around misinformation and AI-generated
fake content are more widespread among left-leaning individuals, with 92% expressing concern
– even as the extent of actual exposure to misinformation and its impact remain heavily
debated in academic circles (Guess et al. 2019; Altay et al. 2023). In contrast, right-leaning
individuals – although they are also highly concerned about misinformation – show heightened
concern about freedom of expression. This is probably in part based on elite cues as a number
of right-wing politicians, activists, and media have, mostly without providing evidence,
claimed to be subject to censorship by platform companies. This pattern underscores not only
ideological differences in prioritising misinformation versus freedom of expression but also the
powerful role of media and political narratives in shaping these public concerns.
Proportion who are somewhat or very concerned about
the i
ssues around misinformation and freedom of speech
–
by political leaning
On
average across eight countries, left-leaning individuals are more concerned about misinformation
and A
I-generated fake content than those on the right, while those on the right are more worried about
g
overnment and tech company restrictions on free speech than those on the left.
Left Centre Right
Misinformation concerns
Freedom of expression
concerns
Q1.
Some people talk about ‘left’, ‘right’ and ‘centre’ to describe parties and politicians. (Generally, socialist
pa
rties would be considered ‘left wing’ whilst conservative parties would be considered ‘right wing’.) With this in
mind, whe
re would you place yourself on the following scale? Q15. To what extent, if at all, are you concerned
about each
of the following? Base: Left/Centre/Right across eight countries = 4622/4339/4830.
Sou
rce: Data from the report 'What do people want? Views on platforms and the digital public sphere in eight
c
ountries', published in November 2024.
0
25
50
75
100%
The use of generative
fake content
AI to create
Technology companies limiting
people’s ability to express
themselves freely online
The spread of misinformation online
Government regulations limiting
people’s ability to express
themselves freely online
47
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
Conclusion
Based on survey data from eight countries, we have looked at how people use various
different platforms, what they say about the role they play in their lives and in society,
and what they want in terms of greater policy attention and responsibility for what
happens online.
One overarching theme in the results is what we call ‘platform ambivalence’. Yes, many
people use platforms for news and information about politics, but they also indicate that
they are sceptical about the information they see there. Many people are clearly concerned
about misinformation, bias, privacy, freedom of expression, and platform power, but they
also recognise the benets of easy access to information and staying connected with friends
and family.
Use and appreciation goes hand in hand with widespread recognition of a range of real
and perceived problems – reecting ‘platform ambivalence’. More than half think that
platforms have made it easier for people to say things they wouldn’t say in person, spread
misinformation, harass or threaten others (66%), or spread extreme viewpoints. Social
media, in particular, is also seen as doing more to drive people apart than bring them
together – though even more people say the same about journalists, news media, and, in
particular, politicians. The latter point is a reminder that the tech industry is not the only
social institution experiencing something of a backlash from parts of the public today.
Misinformation, abuse of generative AI, and platform companies’ handling of personal
data are areas that large minorities of respondents feel are getting too little attention from
policymakers. But, while signicant numbers of people want greater political scrutiny, even
larger numbers think platforms should hold primary responsibility for dealing with such
problems (rather than governments). This is similar to what the Knight Foundation found
in the USA in 2022, and the general pattern holds both in the USA two years later and across
the different countries we cover here.
Despite generally low trust and widespread concern over various issues related to politics,
large numbers of respondents judge that platforms have a net positive impact both for
them personally and for society as a whole. While there are countries in which some of
the behaviours and attitudes analysed here differ across the political spectrum, they are
generally not as partisan as one might assume, and more inuenced by age, comfort with
technology, and personal experience of using the platforms in question. Many of our
respondents are, even if also intense users, sceptics towards digital platforms in many
respects – but it is important to understand this scepticism in the context of a wider
scepticism towards many other institutions in society, including the news media and the
political institutions that one might hope could hold platform companies to account. Some
may even see this as normatively desirable – that people can use platforms while remaining
sceptical about them; that they can see the benets of platforms while at the same time
recognise concerns about their role in society.
THE REUTERS INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF JOURNALISM
48
As citizens, policymakers, and others consider what kind of digital public square they
want in a world where much of the infrastructure we rely on for accessing information
and expressing ourselves is owned and operated by private for-prot companies, we hope
this report can provide evidence of the depth and complexity of the public’s experience
of and thinking around the role platforms play – and might in the future play – in our
societies. For that evolving digital public square to work, many citizens will expect it to be
at least in part attuned and responsive to their preferences and practices, which we have
documented here.
49
WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT? VIEWS ON PLATFORMS AND THE DIGITAL PUBLIC SPHERE IN EIGHT COUNTRIES
References
Ada Lovelace Institute and The Alan Turing Institute. 2023. How Do People Feel About AI? A
Nationally Representative Survey of Public Attitudes to Articial Intelligence in Britain.
https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/report/public-attitudes-ai/
Altay, S., Berriche, M., Acerbi, A. 2023. ‘Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and
Methodological Challenges’. Social Media + Society, 9(1), 20563051221150412.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221150412
Aslett, K., Sanderson, Z., Godel, W., Persily, N., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. 2024. ‘Online searches
to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity’. Nature, 625(7995), 548–556.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y
Fischer, R., Jarren, O. 2024. ‘The Platformization of the Public Sphere and Its Challenge to
Democracy’. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 50(1), 200–215.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537231203535
Fletcher, R., Nielsen, R. K. 2024. What Does the Public in Six Countries Think of Generative AI in
News? Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
https://doi.org/10.60625/RISJ-4ZB8-CG87
Flew, T., Wilding, D. 2021. ‘The Turn to Regulation in Digital Communication: The ACCC’s
Digital Platforms Inquiry and Australian Media Policy’. Media, Culture & Society, 43(1), 48–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720926044
Guess, A., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. 2019. ‘Less Than You Think: Prevalence and Predictors of Fake
News Dissemination on Facebook’. Science Advances, 5(1), eaau4586.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586
Helberger, N., Pierson, J., Poell, T. 2018. ‘Governing Online Platforms: From Contested to
Cooperative Responsibility’. The Information Society, 34(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913
Janoff-Bulman, R. 2023. ‘The Myth of Limited Government’. Yale University Press, 28 April.
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2023/04/28/the-myth-of-limited-government/ (Accessed Nov.
2024).
Knight Foundation. 2022. Media and Democracy: Unpacking America’s Complex Views on
the Digital Public Square. Knight Foundation.
https://knightfoundation.org/reports/media-and-democracy/
Krupnikov, Y., Ryan, J. B. 2022. The Other Divide: Polarization and Disengagement in American
Politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108923323