I will say no. The algorithm isn't the problem at all. There is 1 thing and 1 thing alone that is the problem.

Twitter and others exist entirely because of Section 230. That as a platform they will not be held liable for the content they host.

But there's a caveat. They may only censor content within very specific categories which most people would agree with.

>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-

>(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

That right there is the extent twitter may censor. They cannot go beyond this but they can go less. You are not obligated to remove all lewd things from their website. Twitter clearly does not given how much porn and gore they host. Twitter actively allows death threats. Good faith is super important in this rule.

So lets roll this up into what exactly is the problem in the context of current events. Rachel Levine and mass banning of conservatives.

Rachel Levine was unimpressive achieving nothing of note. She got appointed to a 4 star admiral position solely because of being trans. Then got labelled as woman of the year? Where is the achievement? Just immediately right to 4 star general and woman of the year?

That's not even the controversy. The controversy is that Twitter is banning people for saying "Richard levine spent 54 years of his life as a man" or "men aren't women" not even naming anyone or even linking trans issue. It is a fact that men aren't women. That's why they are separate words.

The conservatives literally wrote what is factual and got banned. They intentionally crafted it this way to show the bad faith.

Now let's roll back to section 230. Twitter is acting in bad faith to restrict specific viewpoints. In so doing creating a protected class of people. Not unlike how twitter actively allows Putin or various other tinpot dictators but doesn't allow trump? It's all bad faith by twitter.

The problem is obvious. Twitter is in clear violation of section 230 but the government refuses to enforce this rule. So Twitter gets all of the liability protections and none of the requirements of free speech.

Now go back to conservatives who just got disenfranchised. Do you think they are going to take the ban and say, you know what maybe I was wrong about trans people. No. They are going to be radicalized more.

Twitter is creating hatred for trans people. As a trans person, twitter is one of the key players in why trans people are hated, and worse the coming consequences for this will not be good for us trans people.

Now imagine twitter got a legal letter saying section 230 good faith will now be enforced. That a single ideological ban like "men aren't women" will be an immediate suspension of their section 230 protection and they will be held as a publisher.

This immediately solves the problem. Twitter doesn't exist without section 230, they would be forced to immediately solve this huge problem.