© 2019 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.
Social Media Ban
2© 2019 Ipsos
Background and Questionnaire Preamble
After terrorists killed more than 300 people in coordinated attacks on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka in April, the government immediately shut down all social media in an attempt to halt the spread of false information and prevent further inflaming an already tense situation.
3© 2019 Ipsos
Should Governments be Allowed to Shut Down Social Media Platforms?• It depends …. on the argument you make. Six in ten global citizens say that it is acceptable to
temporarily cut off access to social media platforms during times of crisis to prevent the spread of misinformation. But, the exact same proportion also agree that temporarily cutting off social media platforms at times of crisis is unacceptable because social media is the primary source of news and information for many people.
• While the survey shows the differences between countries where people are more supportive of temporary social media bans, most people consider it an ineffective policy option. The majority of global citizens (71%) do not believe that a temporary ban would be effective because there are so many ways to work around social media bans.
© 2019 Ipsos 4
Support for Banning Social Media
5© 2019 Ipsos
Support for Banning Social Media• Six in ten global citizens agree that it is acceptable to temporarily cut off social media platforms in times
of crisis to stop the spread of false information. The same proportion say it would be acceptable if there was a terrorist attack.
– Countries most supportive of a social media ban during a crisis include: India (88%), Malaysia (75%), Saudi Arabia (73%), China(72%) and Great Britain (69%).
• While some support exists for a temporary shut down of social media, only half of global citizens surveyed say that they trust their national government to decide when and if it's appropriate to shut down social media platforms. The same proportion say that they trust social media companies to ensure that the content on their platforms is factual during times of crisis.
6© 2019 Ipsos
21%46%27%30%22%25%25%22%23%26%24%18%21%16%28%20%16%21%23%19%19%14%11%16%19%7%16%18%
39%42%
48%43%
50%44%40%
43%40%
37%38%
43%39%
44%31%
38%42%
34%32%
35%35%
39%41%
35%32%
43%33%
29%
60%88%
75%73%
72%69%
65%65%
63%63%
62%61%
60%60%
59%58%58%
55%55%
54%54%
53%52%
51%51%
50%49%
47%
ALL COUNTRIESINDIA
MALAYSIASAUDI ARABIA
CHINAGREAT BRITAIN
AUSTRALIAUS
CANADAFRANCERUSSIA
BELGIUMGERMANY
ITALYTURKEY
SWEDENSPAINPERU
SOUTH AFRICABRAZIL
CHILEPOLAND
SOUTH KOREAHUNGARY
MEXICOJAPANSERBIA
ARGENTINA
More than half of global citizens agree it is acceptable to temporarily cut off social media platforms during a time of crisis.
For each of the following please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree: Temporarily cutting off social media platforms is acceptable at times of crisis to stop the spread of false information.
STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE (NET) AGREE
Base: 19,823 adults aged 16-64 across Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.
Agreement with temporarily cutting off social media platforms
is significantly lower among global citizens with higher levels of
education.
7© 2019 Ipsos
24%50%41%29%28%30%27%26%25%24%19%24%27%20%29%24%17%21%23%21%22%21%18%9%23%20%12%0%
35%35%
36%47%
39%36%
38%37%
38%38%
42%37%
31%37%
28%32%
39%35%
32%31%
30%30%
33%42%
27%28%
34%0%
59%85%
77%76%
67%66%
65%63%63%
62%61%61%
58%57%57%
56%56%56%
55%52%52%
51%51%51%
50%48%
46%
ALL COUNTRIESINDIA
SAUDI ARABIAMALAYSIA
AUSTRALIAGREAT BRITAIN
FRANCERUSSIA
USCANADA
ITALYSPAIN
SOUTH AFRICABELGIUM
TURKEYGERMANY
POLANDSWEDEN
BRAZILMEXICO
PERUCHILE
HUNGARYJAPANSERBIA
ARGENTINASOUTH KOREA
CHINA
Most would also support a temporary social media ban to stop the flow of fake news, in the event of a massive terrorist attack.
(not asked in China)
For each of the following please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree:If there was a massive terrorist attack in my country I would support a temporary social media ban to stop the flow of fake news.
STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE (NET) AGREE
Base: 19,823 adults aged 16-64 across Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.
Global citizens with higher levels of education are
significantly less supportive of a social
media ban.
8© 2019 Ipsos
Global citizens are divided in terms of their trust in government to decide the appropriate time to shut down social media platforms
16%42%37%19%18%20%13%12%15%11%13%14%14%14%18%25%5%14%18%15%15%15%11%5%12%13%13%0%
36%38%
38%55%
42%38%
44%44%
41%43%
41%40%38%38%
34%27%
43%33%
29%30%28%28%
32%37%
29%25%22%
0%
52%80%
75%74%
60%58%
57%56%56%
54%54%54%
52%52%52%52%
48%47%47%
45%43%43%43%
42%41%
38%35%
ALL COUNTRIESINDIA
SAUDI ARABIAMALAYSIA
AUSTRALIARUSSIA
ITALYGREAT BRITAIN
CANADABELGIUM
SPAINSWEDENFRANCE
GERMANYPERU
TURKEYJAPAN
USMEXICO
BRAZILCHILE
SERBIAPOLAND
SOUTH KOREAHUNGARY
SOUTH AFRICAARGENTINA
CHINA (not asked in China)
For each of the following please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree:I trust my national government to decide when and if it's appropriate to shut down social media platforms in times of crisis.
STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE (NET) AGREE
Base: 19,823 adults aged 16-64 across Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.
9© 2019 Ipsos
14%43%19%17%23%27%15%15%15%12%19%18%18%20%13%14%5%14%4%6%9%9%3%11%8%9%7%7%
35%41%
47%47%
38%32%
44%44%44%
46%38%
39%35%
31%36%
34%42%
32%35%
32%28%28%
33%24%
26%25%
25%21%
49%84%
66%64%
61%59%59%59%59%
58%57%57%
53%51%
49%48%
47%46%
39%38%
37%37%
36%35%
34%34%
32%28%
ALL COUNTRIESRUSSIA
PERUCHINAINDIA
SAUDI ARABIAHUNGARY
ITALYMALAYSIA
POLANDMEXICO
SPAINTURKEY
SOUTH AFRICAARGENTINA
BRAZILSOUTH KOREA
CHILEBELGIUM
SERBIAAUSTRALIAGERMANY
JAPANUS
FRANCESWEDENCANADA
GREAT BRITAIN
Most indicate that they do not trust social media companies to ensure the factuality of the content on their platforms.
For each of the following please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree:I trust the social media companies to ensure that the content that is shared on their platforms during times of crisis is factual.
STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE (NET) AGREE
Base: 19,823 adults aged 16-64 across Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.
Trust in social media companies is
significantly lower among those with
higher levels of education.
© 2019 Ipsos 10
Bans Are Not Acceptable
11© 2019 Ipsos
Social Media Bans are Not Acceptable and Will Not Work• Comparable to the proportion who support social media bans, six in ten global citizens also agree that it
is unacceptable to temporarily cut off social media during times of crisis, given the reliance on these platforms for news and information. The majority agrees that social media is not the best or most accurate source of information, but people are capable of separating fact from fiction on these platforms.
– Countries least supportive of temporarily cutting off social media during a crisis include: Peru (74%), Turkey (74%), Mexico (71%), China (70%) and Saudi Arabia (70%).
• In fact, the largest proportion indicates that there are ways around social media bans, and therefore they would not work effectively.
12© 2019 Ipsos
23%38%43%35%19%28%27%26%19%32%27%30%23%24%20%24%16%25%24%14%20%15%21%19%16%10%14%15%
39%36%
31%36%
51%42%
40%41%
48%34%
38%34%
41%39%
42%37%
45%35%
35%44%
37%42%
35%36%
38%42%
37%32%
62%74%74%
71%70%70%
67%67%67%
66%65%
64%64%
63%62%
61%61%
60%59%
58%57%57%
56%55%
54%52%
51%47%
ALL COUNTRIESPERU
TURKEYMEXICO
CHINASAUDI ARABIA
SERBIAARGENTINA
ITALYSOUTH AFRICA
RUSSIACHILESPAIN
HUNGARYPOLAND
INDIAMALAYSIA
BRAZILGERMANY
SOUTH KOREAUS
BELGIUMSWEDEN
AUSTRALIACANADA
JAPANGREAT BRITAIN
FRANCE
Given the reliance on social media for news and information, six in ten agree it is unacceptable for these platforms to be temporarily shut off during times of crisis.
For each of the following please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree:Temporarily cutting off social media platforms at times of crisis is unacceptable because they are the primary source of news and information for many people.
STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE (NET) AGREE
Base: 19,823 adults aged 16-64 across Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.
13© 2019 Ipsos
18%19%31%36%27%29%28%20%19%17%24%21%13%19%21%22%14%12%10%14%12%11%12%12%11%12%13%5%
36%52%
37%30%
37%35%
35%40%
41%42%
32%35%
41%34%
31%29%
36%37%
39%34%
36%34%
33%33%
34%32%
30%36%
54%71%
68%66%
64%64%
63%60%60%
59%56%56%
54%53%
52%51%
50%49%49%
48%48%
45%45%45%45%
44%43%
41%
ALL COUNTRIESCHINA
PERUTURKEYRUSSIA
SAUDI ARABIAMEXICO
INDIASPAIN
POLANDCHILE
SOUTH AFRICAMALAYSIA
BRAZILARGENTINA
SERBIAHUNGARY
ITALYSOUTH KOREA
USSWEDEN
AUSTRALIABELGIUM
GERMANYGREAT BRITAIN
CANADAFRANCE
JAPAN
Over half agree that people are capable of separating fact from fiction, and would not support a temporary social media ban.
For each of the following please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree:I think that most people are capable of separating fact from fiction, so I would not support a temporary social media ban to stop the flow of fake news.
STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE (NET) AGREE
Base: 19,823 adults aged 16-64 across Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.
Those with higherlevels of education are significantly less likely to agree that people
are capable of separating fact from
fiction.
14© 2019 Ipsos
Fewer are in agreement that social media platforms provide the best and most accurate news or information.
13%30%28%23%25%21%21%10%15%15%12%16%13%16%11%8%11%9%7%6%7%2%10%5%5%8%5%0%
32%39%
40%41%
33%36%35%
41%36%36%
38%32%
34%31%
36%34%
29%27%
28%29%
26%31%
23%27%27%
22%22%
0%
45%69%
68%64%
58%57%
56%51%51%51%
50%48%
47%47%47%
42%40%
36%35%35%
33%33%33%
32%32%
30%27%
ALL COUNTRIESSAUDI ARABIA
PERUMEXICOTURKEY
INDIACHILE
MALAYSIARUSSIA
SOUTH AFRICASPAIN
ARGENTINASERBIABRAZIL
POLANDITALY
FRANCEAUSTRALIAGERMANYHUNGARYBELGIUM
JAPANSWEDENCANADA
SOUTH KOREAUS
GREAT BRITAINCHINA
For each of the following please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree:In my country social media platforms are the best, most accurate sources of news and information.
STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE (NET) AGREE
Base: 19,823 adults aged 16-64 across Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.
(not asked in China)
Those with higherlevels of education are significantly less likely
to agree that social media platforms are
superior news sources.
15© 2019 Ipsos
Global citizens are in strongest agreement that there are many ways around social media bans, and therefore question their effectiveness.
22%44%23%28%32%30%18%18%28%29%26%35%19%24%15%16%14%26%16%16%19%17%19%13%23%18%18%10%
49%37%
57%50%
46%48%
59%58%
46%45%
48%38%
54%48%
56%55%
57%44%
53%53%
50%51%
49%53%
42%45%45%
48%
71%81%
80%78%78%78%
77%76%
74%74%74%
73%73%
72%71%71%71%
70%69%69%69%
68%68%
66%65%
63%63%
58%
ALL COUNTRIESTURKEY
POLANDARGENTINA
PERURUSSIA
ITALYGREAT BRITAIN
CHILEMEXICOSERBIA
SAUDI ARABIASPAININDIA
CHINAUS
BELGIUMBRAZIL
CANADAMALAYSIA
SOUTH AFRICAAUSTRALIA
FRANCEJAPAN
HUNGARYGERMANY
SWEDENSOUTH KOREA
For each of the following please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree:There are many ways around social media bans, so they will never be effective.
STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE (NET) AGREE
Base: 19,823 adults aged 16-64 across Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.
16© 2019 Ipsos
Methodology• These are the findings of the Global Advisor Wave 128,
an Ipsos survey conducted between May 24th and June 7th, 2019.
• The survey instrument is conducted monthly in 27 countries around the world via the Ipsos Online Panel system. The countries reporting herein are Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States of America.
• For the results of the survey presented herein, an international sample of 19,823 adults aged 18-74 in the US, South Africa, Turkey and Canada, and age 16-74 in all other countries, were interviewed.
• Approximately 1000+ individuals participated on a country by country basis via the Ipsos Online Panel. The precision of Ipsos online polls are calculated using a credibility interval with a poll of 1,000 accurate to +/- 3.1 percentage points and of 500 accurate to +/- 4.5 percentage points. For more information on the Ipsos use of credibility intervals, please visit the Ipsos website.
• 15 of the 27 countries surveyed online generate nationally representative samples in their countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and United States).
• Brazil, Chile, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Russia,, Serbia, South Africa and Turkey produce a national sample that is more urban & educated, and with higher incomes than their fellow citizens. We refer to these respondents as “Upper Deck Consumer Citizens”. They are not nationally representative of their country.
• Where results do not sum to 100, this may be due to computer rounding, multiple responses or the exclusion of don't knows or not stated responses.
17
ABOUT IPSOS
Ipsos ranks third in the global research industry. With a strong presence in 87 countries, Ipsos employs more than 16,000 people and has the ability to conduct research programs in more than 100 countries. Founded in France in 1975, Ipsos is controlled and managed by research professionals. They have built a solid Group around a multi-specialist positioning – Media and advertising research; Marketing research; Client and employee relationship management; Opinion & social research; Mobile, Online, Offline data collection and delivery.
Ipsos is listed on Eurolist – NYSE – Euronext. The company is part of the SBF 120 and the Mid-60 index and is eligible for the Deferred Settlement Service (SRD).
ISIN code FR0000073298, Reuters ISOS.PA, Bloomberg IPS:FP
www.ipsos.com
GAME CHANGERS
At Ipsos we are passionately curious about people, markets, brands and society. We deliver information and analysis that makes our complex world easier and faster to navigate and inspires our clients to make smarter decisions.
We believe that our work is important. Security, simplicity, speed and substance applies to everything we do.
Through specialisation, we offer our clients a unique depth of knowledge and expertise. Learning from different experiences gives us perspective and inspires us to boldly call things into question, to be creative.
By nurturing a culture of collaboration and curiosity, we attract the highest calibre of people who have the ability and desire to influence and shape the future.
“GAME CHANGERS” – our tagline – summarises our ambition.