Well, it goes both ways. Yes, the algorithm is simply rewarding content styles that apparently people "want to see more of". Of course, this metric is fuzzy. Twitter et al don't have perfect information here. All they know is certain content gets engaged with more. So it's both the people to blame and the algorithm. You can't really blame either side; capitalism values attention at all costs, while people naturally engage with certain content styles that don't necessarily breed the most nuance or positivity.
But content prioritization has nothing to do with the right of free speech. The right is about speech, not about being heard. If it's not censored, then you've still "spoken".
The platforms manipulating what speech gets shown is in a way their own form of speech. I think this can be dangerous, but that's more a condemnation of how we use those private services than the services themselves.
