The problem with social media isn't free speech itself, but algorithms that elevate misinformation for engagement. A targeted solution is to remove Section 230 liability protection *only* for content that platforms algorithmically boost, holding them accountable for their editorial choices without engaging in broad censorship.

The feeling of deep societal division is an artifact of platform design. Algorithms amplify extreme voices because they generate engagement, creating a false impression of widespread polarization. In reality, without these amplified voices, most people's views on contentious topics are quite moderate.

Conspiracy theories gain mainstream traction because social media platforms have a profit incentive to algorithmically elevate novel, engaging content. This amplification normalizes fringe ideas, making them seem self-evident and eroding institutional trust.

Extremist figures are not organic phenomena but are actively amplified by social media algorithms that prioritize incendiary content for engagement. This process elevates noxious ideas far beyond their natural reach, effectively manufacturing influence for profit and normalizing extremism.

While features like autoplay can be separated from speech, algorithmic personalization is much closer to protected editorial discretion. Attempts to regulate how platforms recommend content—the likely cause of many user harms—will face severe First Amendment challenges, making it the thorniest issue for policymakers.

Instead of outright banning topics, platforms create subtle friction—warnings, errors, and inconsistencies. This discourages users from pursuing sensitive topics, achieving suppression without the backlash of explicit censorship.

Societal polarization is not just ideological but algorithmic. Social media platforms are financially incentivized to amplify divisive content because "enragement equals engagement," which drives ad revenue. This creates a distorted, more hostile view of reality than what exists offline.

Scott Galloway argues influential platforms like Joe Rogan's podcast and Spotify have a duty to scale fact-checking to match their reach. He posits their failure to do so during the COVID pandemic recklessly endangered public health by creating false equivalencies between experts and misinformation spreaders, leading to tragic, real-world consequences.

A targeted approach to social media regulation is to remove Section 230 liability protection specifically for content that platforms' algorithms choose to amplify. If a company reverse-engineers a user's behavior to promote harmful content, they should be held liable, just as a bartender is for over-serving a customer.