Neither. Change the law to make platforms like Facebook accountable for the content published on them. Here's how you do that without damaging speech or making platform companies impossible: make platform protections dependent on revenue stream. If you are paid by the author to publish their work, you are a protected platform and it isn't your content. If you make money by selling advertising alongside the content or by selling a subscription to the content stream, you are exposed to libel lawsuits, incitement, hate speech, false advertising, etc. The rest will sort itself out.
Previously journalism cleaned itself up because it could be held accountable for outright lies. There is incentive to make outrageous claims because outrage sells. The balance is to create civil and criminal repercussions for provable lies. Lies spread on social media like wildfire because outrage sells and more eyeballs means more money for the platform, so the platform and the authors are incentivized to create and spread misinformation. There is no balance against it, so it will continue to grow.
> If you make money by selling advertising alongside the content [...] you are exposed to libel lawsuits [...] The rest will sort itself out.
By "sort itself out" you mean Facebook would moderate and remove 100x more content? I cannot see how that is not the only outcome if you make platforms liable for the content its users post.
That or they would turn to a model where they charge their users to post which would result in a reduction in content on its own without Facebook having to intervene or be held responsible for it. Only those who are really willing to stand by their content would be willing to pay (even if the fee is comparatively small). Networks of utter nonsense being posted and mindlessly reshared by large networks of bots and people who plainly don't care to fact check anything themselves would likely dry up.
Largely, there is a lot of misinformation spreading on Facebook that has harmful effects. Freedom of speech is tremendously important, but typically the tradeoff is that it comes with some personal responsibility / liability depending on who the speaker, the audience, the intentions of the speaker, and the effects of the speech on the audience. The current platform setup manages to shift that responsibility away from anyone. I think most reasonable people would agree with this, but perhaps many more people than I would think believe in limitless speech without consequences.
Previously journalism cleaned itself up because it could be held accountable for outright lies. There is incentive to make outrageous claims because outrage sells. The balance is to create civil and criminal repercussions for provable lies. Lies spread on social media like wildfire because outrage sells and more eyeballs means more money for the platform, so the platform and the authors are incentivized to create and spread misinformation. There is no balance against it, so it will continue to grow.