The notion of a democratically elected government that ‘listens to the people’ was echoed alongside an understanding that viable alternatives are not necessarily more attractive; “The government. Not every government is democratically elected, they also use it to control. We don’t want to regulate speech at the end of a gun, at the same time we don’t want companies that are for profit to be in charge. We need to strike a balance.” (KII_01) (Female) At the same time, other participants expressed an adamant distrust of any government regulation, regardless of who is in charge. The majority of participants believed that tech companies should assume responsibility to handle harmful content shared on their platforms, and participants expressed close familiarity with Facebook community standards and reporting mechanisms for harmful content. For many though, tech companies cannot be trusted to hold this responsibility alone. 40 “It starts from individuals, to not attack others for their beliefs. Most important to start with ourselves. But also, social media companies, to filter and not allow hate speech. Sometimes when they filter, they are kind of authoritarian too, and can take down content without even looking at it.” (KII_02) (Female). Several participants perceived an ‘unfair’ or ‘uninformed’ management by Facebook. Respondents exploring the role of individual responsibility in this regard demonstrated a minor reluctance, evident by the number of survey participants who totally agreed, which was less than those that were either neutral, or agreed a little or disagreed a little. This could be in part because of a belief in limited widespread ‘knowledge’ with regards on appropriate online behaviour; “People like us, we are aware of the standards and ethical considerations, what we should or shouldn’t post. There are others who don’t have that kind of knowledge. […] there are people who intentionally create problematic posts – in which case the government and tech companies have to coordinate to take action – against those who create fake news intentionally. It also depends on the situation in which the people commit actions online, intentionally or unintentionally.” (FGD_01) (Male) For most focus group respondents, however, this was also further explained by the perception that individual responsibility, while deemed an essential first line of action may not always be enough on its own. Few respondents expressed that the online space either cannot or should not be regulated at all and caution was advised; “I think it’s important that we tread very carefully very lightly when regulating freedom of speech. If we start regulating it could lead us to losing the essence of freedom of speech [...].” (FGD_07) (Male) Further questioning of two participants who felt strongly about the topic of regulation highlighted a belief that FoE entails within it a strong element of responsibility, to be responsible for what you say and do online (as individuals) first and foremost. This was supported by the belief that it is somewhat necessary to regulate the online space, but vital to exercise caution, to not overdo it and “to be aware of what we might be giving up to have these laws and regulations in place”. (FGD_07)