Bystanders and Reporters: Who Acts Against Illegal Online Content?

Abstract

Harmful and illegal content on social media is widespread, but what should be taken down is widely disputed, creating ongoing challenges for resolving the tension between free speech and user safety. User reporting is a key mechanism for addressing such content, yet little is known about who reports, what motivates them, and how they compare to the general population. We study these questions using two datasets: (1) a unique survey with individuals verified to have previously reported potentially illegal content to a third-party organization in Germany and (2) a quota-based sample approximating the German population. We show that individuals who have previously reported potentially illegal content via a third-party reporting service represent a distinct, civically engaged subset of users. They tend to be older, more often men than women, highly educated, highly politically active, and markedly left-leaning. They are not politically representative of the German population and take a distinctly different position when balancing free speech and protection from harm, putting more emphasis on protecting from harm. Reporting users’ motivations appear primarily civic-minded rather than reactive, especially among those who do it frequently and those intervening on behalf of others. These insights highlight reporting as a form of digital civic participation and offer perspectives relevant for understanding political engagement online, platform governance, user agency, and trust and safety regulation.