If 50% of the users are bot followers bought by PACs from foreign countries - who are gluing posters to the walls, enraging actual customers, and ordering free waters - how much time do the regulars want to spend there?
Figure out a way to charge the PACs for the spammy vitriol that they bought and smeared all over Biz, Evan, Noah, and Jack's.
The metaphorical theft is from the people who have had uncompensated costs imposed on them, such as the people that were killed in Myanmar after their killers organized on Facebook.
Are weapon (gun, knife,) designers, manufacturers, distributors, or sellers liable for how killers use their product to cruelly or unusually harm persons denied Due Process of Law?
What sorts of mandatory and charitable investments could reduce such harms, due to which parties' positive or negative actions?
Obviously there's a spectrum of responsibility, with some companies bearing more and others less. The grocery store is a poor analogy though because they're not actively facilitating tomatoes being thrown. If they incentivized tomatoes being thrown through social mechanics then I would place more blame on their shoulders.
Also you're talking about current law here. I'm not interested in the current state of affairs. I understand Twitter and Facebook aren't breaking the law if they facilitate organization of a genocide. I'm talking about what should be the case. Perhaps laws need to be updated.
If 50% of the users are bot followers bought by PACs from foreign countries - who are gluing posters to the walls, enraging actual customers, and ordering free waters - how much time do the regulars want to spend there?
Figure out a way to charge the PACs for the spammy vitriol that they bought and smeared all over Biz, Evan, Noah, and Jack's.