We’ve all been there: late-night doom-scrolling, watching video after video after video of everything from cute puppies to make-up tutorials to controversial displays of political opinion. While the assortment of videos seems randomized, its selection is in truth, highly calculated, with one sinister goal: to keep the user on the app for as long as possible. 

For the sake of this nefarious undertaking, social media platforms will ultimately sacrifice the well-being of their users for profit by promoting controversial and often harmful content. The deceptive ways in which these platforms select content for promotion have recently come under scrutiny in the court cases Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, which will be decided by the Supreme Court in a few months. Essentially, both companies are being sued for failing to regulate terrorist organizations that use the platform to promote their extremist beliefs. 

While the accused companies claim protection under a 1996 law eliminating liability for user posts, the social media industry is no longer the small, new and vulnerable industry lawmakers had in mind during the law’s creation. The law was initially intended to protect, but its words are now misconstrued to enable platforms to run unchecked, with no legal repercussions for giving extremists and propaganda a big stage.

Though they claim ignorance, Twitter was aware that the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) was using its platform to spread their extremist views, yet failed to take effective measures to restrict its posts until public outrage became impossible to ignore. The dangers of social media sites turning a blind eye to hateful and violent users have caused politicians from both ends of the spectrum, including Republican Congressman Lindsey Graham and Democrat President Joe Biden, to call for a revision of the law. 

Unfortunately, the quick spread of hate, racism, sexism and terrorism on social media and news platforms is not a new phenomenon. Take former president Donald Trump, who became popular for his hateful tweets toward immigrants, women and minorities. Previous lack of consequences, combined with instant communication with his followers enabled him to disrupt the foundations of our democracy—the effects of which are still being felt to this day. Though even after the unforgettable Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, Twitter seems to already have forgotten Trump’s rallying tweets, recently reinstalling Trump’s account and continuing to exploit his controversy to increase users.

And we can’t forget the infamous TikToker Andrew Tate, who went viral for his controversial beliefs about the superiority of men and the inferiority of women. Tate’s misogynistic comments preyed on the vulnerabilities of millions of young men, ingraining toxic masculinity into their minds and actions. 

While these users were well-known for their commentary exacerbating hate culture, social media platforms had no interest in effectively addressing these pressing issues. And why would they when it increases user engagement and boosts their profits?

It wasn’t until public opinion demanded it of them and they could face economic backlash that companies began cracking down on these influencers. But by the time these calls echoed the halls of headquarters, it was too little too late. 

Instead of focusing on profit, social media companies need to prioritize their users by promoting trusted sources with positive content, taking more aggressive steps to filter out hateful rhetoric and restricting the influence of sources known to be untrustworthy or bigoted. But positive change can only be fully realized once the incentives to do so shifts from fear of economic retaliation to hope for a better, safer internet for all.