It's weird that both the article and the comments descended into a debate around censorship and free speech when the above quote is very clear on the actual problem. The issue isn't what's posted, but rather how the social media companies rely on "serving up harmful content" using simplistic AI algorithms geared only toward maximizing engagement. The fact is that if TikTok knows enough to serve someone suicide bait videos, then it also knows enough to serve up videos about mental health and reaching out for help. It could probably even be sufficiently tactful in how it did this, in order to avoid alienating vulnerable users.

Though I tend to agree with the perspective that the whole Town Square metaphor is horseshit and social media companies should be treated fundamentally as publishers, I also recognize that nothing's going to change wrt to the torrents of rampant stupidity posted every second on social media. However, automatically channeling a one-dimensional stream of bullshit to users, for the benefit of nothing other than the company's bottom-line, can definitely be regulated without imposing on free speech in any way. If the companies' stock prices take a hit, then boo-fucking-hoo. It only means they weren't great companies to begin with—i.e., if a company has to rely on predatory practices to be profitable then it probably shouldn't be a profitable company.