sounds like china has the right idea. it takes me (in america) constantly weeding the garden of my youtube (also american) to minimize the dumb shit it shows me. so does america want stupid americans? is that not the biggest deal?
My suspicion, which is mostly just me thinking out loud and is based on no real evidence, is that folks are (a) largely desensitized to stimulation due to aggressive "marketing" (in the loosest sense of the word - whether ads, click/viewbait, or other quasi-exploitative attention-grabbing things); and/or (b) have observed that, culturally, a lot of "dumb shit" is mainstream enough (in terms of critical mass within their social microcosm) to warrant conformity, and thus may be a preference that is adopted for identity or inclusivity purposes. Similarly, it may be seen as a pathway to some form of success or recognition (see: IG/YT influencers, tiktok fads, etc).
I'm sure other, much smarter folks have actual evidence or have performed studies (and I would be interested in learning more), but based on my personal experience, the above seems to hold true, generally speaking.
"recommendation algorithms operated by a publicly-owned company must bias towards intellectually stimulating content"
How would you even define "intellectually stimulating content" in juristical clear terms?
If I would want to increase the general level of science education (I strongly do), I would increase funding to schools and enable them to have fun experiments with the students of all sorts.
I love science, ever have and my teachers did the best they could, but even to me school was booring as hell.
This is an extremely misleading line of reasoning.
Publicly traded companies are not 'public' in the same sense as publicly owned airwaves, public (that is, government) employees, and public property. They don't cede any constitutional rights simply by offering equity for sale in the capital markets.
At any rate, there is a process for amending the Constitution, so if you want the First Amendment to change such that the federal government has a clear mandate to do this sort of thing, feel free to campaign for that. But just repeated violation by the state is not that process.
That's... not the same as a service on the internet, at all.
You're also talking about a completely different regulation regime. The FCC rules prohibit certain (fairly narrow?) things, largely "obscenity". A regulation that requires a company to actively promote certain things is... not even remotely the same.
I'd say it depends on the politicians themselves. I'd say populists don't mind the people's stupidity and misery at all, because they turn that into an advantage for themselves, by very publicly providing, or even just promising, a short term relief for them. In this way, systemic issues like the welfare trap or wage slavery give them opportunity to inflate their popularity by organizing handouts, or by redirecting the people's misery to outgroups, such as non-heterosexuals, people of color, immigrants or other marginalized groups like people with addictions.