“Would you like to apologize for what you’ve done to these good people?” U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) asked Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this week at a congressional hearing regarding social media and its effects on young Americans.

Zuckerberg stood and turned to apologize to certain members of the audience, families of young people who lost their lives to suicide, overdose or murder that stemmed from communications on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and X. During his remarks, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said these companies must be “reined in” and they “have a product that is killing people.” Similar sentiments have been shared by Democrats in Congress as well.

Dangerous disservice to not hold dark side of social media accountable | POINT

When a murderer uses a Smith & Wesson to kill an innocent being, we don’t see Sen. Graham chastising the company’s chief executive, Mark P. Smith, as having “blood on his hands.” Nor do we see the CEO of Ford being asked to apologize to those who lost their lives when one of their vehicles is operated by a drunk driver. Why not? Because that wouldn’t make sense.

Social media is a profound tool that has had an extraordinary impact on our lives, and much like firearms and vehicles, it is a tool that can be abused and misused at the expense of our loved ones. We should absolutely be having a conversation about the benefits and ills of social media. I share my counterpoint’s concern for its effect on young minds and its contribution to deteriorating civil discourse. But the question is whether the federal government should be aiming to hold social media companies accountable for everything posted, shared, messaged or commented on their websites.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

At the crux of this discussion is Section 230. Simplified, this portion of U.S. law clarifies websites are not liable for the content their users upload, but are allowed to engage in content moderation if they choose to do so to better their product. Social media sites like Facebook are treated as distributors, not publishers, and as such, the law recognizes their tools and their users are legally separate.

Section 230 should remain the law of the land and without revision. Social media companies are being challenged with the impossible task of somehow moderating every word of content on their sites, from online bullying to drug sales and disinformation. On Meta’s family of sites alone, 100 billion messages are exchanged each day. How could Meta possibly moderate these messages while also maintaining the privacy of users?

We should absolutely do a better job talking to our kids about social media and we can even demand, as consumers, social media companies do more to curtail destructive activities on their sites. But at the end of the day, we can’t blame Mark Zuckerberg for the actions of others simply because they utilize his company’s tools, nor should we be so eager for Congress to bring down their hammer.

Sage Naumann is a conservative commentator and strategist. He operates Anthem Communications and was previously the spokesman for the Colorado Senate Republicans. Follow him on Twitter @SageNaumann.