> You're going to have to pick one of these two statements.

Absolutly not. Repeating myself from a bit further down:

It's basically the same issue with all social platform, yes everyone should have the right to express their views, but mass amplification via the platform's algorithm shouldn't be a right.

Also,

> let the audience determine what makes it to the front page

/r/t_d was gaming the upvote system to have way more posts on /r/all that they would have had 'naturally', making this whole point moot. It wasn't determined by what the audience wanted to see, it was determined by a small brigade of motivated people.

The issue is indeed the same with all social platforms but also media and broadcast. The singular question is this: What entity can really artfully determine who ought to speak to the masses in the interest of society? Is there someone with superiority of wisdom that can determine who should speak to many, and if so, is the answer the same ones that hold that power today. In the not-so-long ago it was the priest who spoke to the many and the king with the divine wisdom. Today we know better and thus we have given that power to... the ones we elect? No. It is the one whose platform has the highest stickyness.

Mass amplification via a platform's algorithm is not a big step above the old ways, and the platform owner does not seem to have much better divine wisdom than past kings.

Do you think the alt right is gaming the first amendment by holding rallies that get mass coverage?

No because it's part of your rights as an individual.

Gaming Reddit's upvote system is however directly prohibited by the ToS:

> [...] the following behaviors are prohibited on Reddit:

* Asking for votes or engaging in vote manipulation [...]

You can’t hide behind the terms of service. That is just something reddit made up. There is no fundamental difference between these two scenarios except whatever you’ve invented in your mind.