Partisan conflict over content moderation is more than disagreement about facts.

Social media companies have come under increasing pressure to remove misinformation from their platforms, but partisan disagreements over what should be removed have stymied efforts to deal with misinformation in the United States. Current explanations for these disagreements center on the "fact gap"-differences in perceptions about what is misinformation. We argue that partisan differences could also be due to "party promotion"-a desire to leave misinformation online that promotes one's own party-or a "preference gap"-differences in internalized preferences about whether misinformation should be removed. Through an experiment where respondents are shown false headlines aligned with their own or the opposing party, we find some evidence of party promotion among Democrats and strong evidence of a preference gap between Democrats and Republicans. Even when Republicans agree that content is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed and more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship.

Privacy in the age of psychological targeting.

Psychological targeting describes the practice of extracting people's psychological profiles from their digital footprints (e.g. their Facebook Likes, Tweets or credit card records) in order to influence their attitudes, emotions or behaviors through psychologically informed interventions at scale. We discuss how the increasingly blurred lines between public and private information, and the continuation of the outdated practices of notice and consent, challenge traditional conceptualizations of privacy in the context of psychological targeting. Drawing on the theory of contextual integrity, we argue that it is time to rethink privacy and move beyond the questions of who collects what data to how the data are being used. Finally, we suggest that regulations of psychological targeting should be accompanied by a mindset that fosters (1) privacy by design to make it easy for individuals to act in line with their privacy goals, as well as (2) disclosure by choice, to allow individuals to freely decide whether and when they might be willing to forsake their privacy for better service.