It might not be the job of an entertainment platform to challenge views, per se, but you can argue that it is its job to make sure that their profit-maximising algorithms do not devolve into steering users down a rabbit hole of ever more extreme and dishonest content within an information bubble.
Or, at any rate, if that's the outcome, then it might be time to regulate said platform.
The thing is that those definitions aren't unambiguously definable to humans let alone machines which can't tell. Who defines extreme? Who defines dishonest? Not to mention context and satire. If I suggest killing all the lawyers am I quoting Shakespeare, joking, or trying to incite violence?
Anyone capable of doing so is clearly capable of heading a Unicorn start up which isn't overvalued.
Large tech companies frequently receive demands for the literally impossible like backdoors which don't compromise security.
If I choose to only buy magazines with racist/extreme/violent content, its on me. But if I watch it on YouTube its on them? I don't understand how using the magic word "algorithm" immediately implies that there is zero volition from the part of the user. Is it scary to think that people actually want to watch these videos, even if the algorithm didn't exist?
Or, at any rate, if that's the outcome, then it might be time to regulate said platform.