> Just don't use Facebook. Or Twitter. Or whatever other platform has an algorithmic feed that you don't like. Sounds like you're saying that Facebook, Twitter

> Just don't use Facebook. Or Twitter. Or whatever other platform has an algorithmic feed that you don't like. Sounds like you're saying that Facebook, Twitter, et al are providers of content, and users can just choose among these content providers the way they can newspapers or television networks. Totally makes sense. The thing is, they don't want to be treated thar way. At least not most of the time. They want to be treated as a utility service that facilitates distribution of user content, because that kind of service is largely protected from accountability for the content being distributed. If they're providing a well-made pipe or a community bulletin board, them they're off the hook when somebody shoves something illegal through the pipe or posts something libelous on the board. Newspapers and telivision networks are liable for the content they buy/produce and distribute. They can be sued for libel or prosecuted for publicizing classified material inappropriately. Traditional internet communities have a special protection from that kind of accountability under the premise that they're simply raw conduits and not deliberate curators or publishers. Facebook, Twitter, et al began to push the boundaries of that protection as the modern social media "Algorirthms" developed and became more and more crafted to favor specific content of the site's choosing. It makes them look a lot more like a publisher than a conduit. Whether they still represent the kind of site that's supposed to be protected or if they now represent the kind of publisher that's supposed to be accountable is ultimately an unsettled political question. You can have your opinion, and it sounds like you do, but it's not a simple and obvious thing at this point.