bad take. social media companies have been under threat of regulation for a few regimes now because they're overstepping their legal bounds when they remove content and may face harsh regulation.
they can get away with it when it comes simply to removing content like gore, porn, etc that violates simple guidelines. but when you start removing posts and accounts based on what an employee deems is the truth while information is still emerging then you have an issue that can be litigated and/or legislated. they want to avoid that at all costs.
the only "appease trump" angle i see makes the dem argument worse, because Harris would have liked to leverage the DA to change even more of their policy internally. the hunter biden laptop situation was a debacle, anyone who wants more of those situations is deranged and shortsighted.
I don't think it's regulation that motivates them at this time. Social media companies are reacting to the threat of the pocket book, especially now with more options instead of the Facebook monopoly which ran for about 15 years. People don't want to pay for the premium features or invest time creating the social media when it's subject to shadow ban, redaction, deletion, etc. As a long time YT premium user, I canceled (was also nearly triple the cost of when I first subscribed). Also, seen more and more YT complain ok their own way of the censorship. Censorship on academic content...meanwhile Zulu dancers exposed.
As for regulation, Id just like sites who position themselves as hosting public comments to live up to it. Keep the comments public unless threats or doxxing. Else fine the domain owners. For those who complain about sites should not be regulated. They already are, so pound sound. ADA, prono rules, etc.