Ok so isn’t the issue at hand whether the sites are to blame?

let’s break this down so I can answer you in what I think is an honest way:

1. Are the sites legally responsible for the content they host, generally speaking and/or in this context of radicalization and such subsequent results as these?

and

2. Do these sites bear any social/moral responsibility to moderate their more extreme content in good faith to try to prevent this sort of result?

and

3. Is there an overlap of 1 and 2?

1 - this is for a court to decide. I’m not familiar enough with the very specifics of case law or with the suits being brought to know exactly what is being alleged, etc. I can’t opine on this other that to say that, from what I do know, it’s unlikely that a court would hold these sites legally responsible.

2 - I fully believe that, yes, sites like these, massive, general-use public sites have a social and moral responsibility to keep their platforms safe. How and what that means is a matter for much debate, and I’m sure people here will do just that.

3 - is there overlap? again, legally, I’m not sure, but there might be, and in the near future, there might be much more. also, should there be more? another subject for debate.

here isn’t anything particularly special about them that would disproportionately attract the alt-right crazies

lmao… that’s a good one

YouTube’s algorithm seems to be funneling people to alt-right videos

Feeding Hate With Video: A Former Alt-Right YouTuber Explains His Methods

‘Carol’s Journey’: What Facebook knew about how it radicalized users

'It let white supremacists organize': the toxic legacy of Facebook's Groups

this is just scratching the surface…

a great video essay the subject:

The Alt-Right Playbook: How to Radicalize a Normie (CW/TW)