> I think this was true before both started pushing algorithmic feeds over chronological ones. While it's true that algorithmic feeds fundamentally give the pl

> I think this was true before both started pushing algorithmic feeds over chronological ones. While it's true that algorithmic feeds fundamentally give the platform control over what you see, this is not the type of slam dunk argument you are making it out to be. First of all, the primary reason social media platforms move to algorithmic feeds is to increase engagement (eyeballs, ad revenue etc.), not censorship. And this is because a lot of the content posted by people is crap and not interesting to others, and a purely chronological timeline puts all such content at equal footing. For the longest time FB let you switch to a chronological feed, and for most people, it was absolute crap, because generic posts by your friends, updates about changes they made, social media posts by brands etc. all got exactly the same weightage, and you had to trawl through a lot of crap to find useful stuff on the feed. Left to their own devices (and by that I mean, without traditional media raking them through the coals every single day), these platforms would be happy to keep leftists in their leftist bubbles, rightists in their rightist bubbles, and so on, as long as it kept all these factions individually engaged and happy. Do you think Facebook _enjoys_ dealing with these pointless he-said she-said sort of arguments every day whenever something contentious comes up? They don't. It's a HUGE time and money sink for them, and causes reputational damage no matter what decision they take, because someone will always be upset.