Fortunately the First Amendment doesn't allow the US government to regulate such activities just because elitist authoritarians consider them harmful. This is an area where fundamental rights overrule cost-benefit analysis.
The FCC has no legal authority to regulate anti-vaccine content on TV. (I don't support such content, just explaining the law.) The FCC has some limited authority to regulate obscenity and indecency on over-the-air broadcast channels only. Congress gave them this authority because broadcast spectrum is a scarce public resource that reaches into everyone's home whether they want it or not. However the FCC generally has no authority over cable, Internet, or satellite content. Those systems aren't subject to spectrum scarcity and have effectively infinite capacity.
That makes sense, thanks! I'm wondering if there is some sort of regulation possibility on their processing of content or algorithms. In other words, similar to the cookie law in EU (which has an abysmal implementation) whereby individuals have more control on what they can and can't see and what gets promoted to them.
In general content promotion algorithms can't be regulated because a recommendation on which videos to watch is legally considered an opinion and thus Constitutionally protected free speech. The Supreme Court would probably only allow regulations in two narrow areas. The first would be where the promoted content is itself not Constitutionally protected due to obscenity or incitement of violence. The second would be commercial speech targeting children, who are legally considered as needing additional protection. For example the FTC can regulate some aspects of online services for minors under COPPA.
