Twitter didn’t just make a simple communication platform, they made a platform and wrote algorithms that (intended or not) elevate extremist and divisive voices.

If they just made a simple chat app your metaphor would hold but they are directly responsible because they choose which content is shown and which isn’t.

Twitter was far more interesting when trends were actually real instead of prescriptive topics someone wants you to show interest in.

Now it is a mix that many regard as repulsive by default.

The problem is many get hooked and duped by manipulators of the platforms. That's self-destructive.

Agreed. It is one of the worst types of scam and people get taken advantage off. But if you exile Alex Jones, you also exile its users and their ability to get out of there is severely dimmed.

"There must be some truth to what he says if he gets that much backlash" is always a convincing argument. I don't even mean that ironically.

Better have that in the open because on the internet there will always be at least one person that disagrees with any view that is espoused.

This analogy is not really exact. One can argue that paper companies are not responsible for extremist views, since they do not have advertisement algorithms which elevate such pamphlets. Paper is a neutral platform in that sense. So are smartphones, more or less. They sell based on features, the wow factor, a desire for mingling in with the in-crowd etc.

Social media platform algorithms, whether by design or not, drive discussion into the most extreme polarising tones.

In pragmatic terms, there is a world of difference between smartphones and social media.

I get your point but there is definitely a difference between creating a platform where everybody is the same and a platform where engagement algorithms and recommendations push certain messages (or hashtags) to the top to be seen by millions.