Yes. That's the part I meant to specify in my reply that I think would make the legislation unlikely to pass in its current form. I can't see holding any social media website, no matter how big, responsible for user-uploaded content. But the point about the algorithms is something that I can see gaining traction moving forward, because although you might be more likely to hear complaints about that from the right (since Silicon Valley companies tend to be left-leaning) than from the left, that is one thing that -- if objectively provable (as the bill asks it to be) -- could do nothing but either prove the tech companies to be unbiased (in which case there's no use for this legislation, so it goes away, and the tech companies are happy), or prove that there is a problem to be fixed (in which case there is a point to the legislation, but the tech companies get to do a Wells Fargo-style
mea culpa* and benefit from the the accompanying public rehabilitation by being able to legitimately tout their own transparency...and the tech companies are happy).
* since you're from the UK, so I don't know how much you might have heard of this: Wells Fargo is a US-based bank which a few years ago was found to be engaging in some really illegal practices (primarily
opening new accounts without customer approval) and hence has had to spend a lot of time convincing the public of how much it has changed, by admitting to the problem as much as it has had to, paying out multiple lawsuits, firing their CEO and bringing in new management to reform the bank, etc.