A government will always its power. That is why you give it as little as possible and let the people tackle the social issues.
Possibly relatedly (depending on whether you think it's a legitimate function of government to be the answer to this question), what sort of social issues may the people tackle, and with what sort of power, and how is abusive vigilante justice prevented? Should Reddit refuse to allow people to arrange for sales of alcohol using their site as a communication platform, because underage people might buy beer? (This is a new policy from approximately yesterday: https://redd.it/863xcj ) Should the CEO of Cloudflare, bending to public pressure, refuse to serve Nazis on ideological grounds? Should a religious person with a genuine belief that abortion is murder be allowed to use deadly force to stop an abortion clinic? Should the Black Panthers be allowed to bear arms in public whenever Oakland police are in black neighborhoods, in order to dissuade the government from abusing its power? (Ronald "nine most terrifying words" Reagan signed the act that made this illegal.)
To be fair, they're doing that in reaction to Sec 230.
If the government decided to stay out of drug regulation entirely, would it be reasonable for companies like Reddit to decide on their own that people under some age should not be able to purchase beer online, set that age, etc.? (Presumably, because there is not overwhelming public support to repeal those laws, society at large believes that young people should be prevented, passive voice, from buying beer - if we move enforcement of that social problem to the people, how should that get implemented?)
I guess that's better? In theory at least, people can switch social networks. To some extent you'll get the level of regulation you prefer.
Even that's a bit optimistic, since a lot of people aren't technically competent and just do whatever their friends recommend.