Perhaps free speech isn't the problem, but free speech x algorithmic feeds is? As we all know the algorithm favors the dramatic, controversial, etc. That creates an uneven marketplace for free speech where the most subversive and contrarian takes essentially have a megaphone over everyone else.

As I understand it, Twitter has something called Community Notes. So people can write things, but it can potentially have an attached refutation.

I feel that this is the right approach-- the liability and toxicity of the platforms isn't due to them being communication platforms it's because in most practical or technical ways they are not: they are deliberate behavior modification schemes where-in companies are willfully inflaming their customer's political and social sentiments for profit in exchange for access to the addictive platform. It's like free digital weed but the catch is that it makes you angry and politically divisive.

In this sense platforms like X need to be regulated more like gambling. In some ways X is a big roulette wheel that's being spun which will help stochastically determine where the next major school shooting will take place.

Building on that, the crazy person spouting conspiracy theories in the town square, who would have been largely ignored in the past, suddenly becomes the most visible.

The first amendment was written in the 1700s...

Glad to see this, was going to make a similar comment.

People should be free to say what they want online. But going down "YouTube conspiracy theory" rabbit holes is a real thing, and YouTube doesn't need to make that any easier, or recommend extreme (or demonstrably false) content because it leads to more "engagement".