This week, Facebook is embroiled in a different kind of election interference scandal.

The current controversy stems from two separate but related events. The first revolves around leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg speaking privately to employees at recent town hall meetings, where he called Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plans to break up Facebook an “existential” threat to the company and one he would fight. The second is a recent announcement by Facebook that it is exempting political figures from its policy forbidding spreading misinformation in advertisements (yes, politicians spreading false claims in their ads is just a part of the political conversation, according to Facebook).

Both developments have attracted the ire of Warren who, in a series of tweets this week, argued that the public has a right to know how Facebook “intends to use their influence in this election” and implied that Mr. Zuckerberg and Facebook might be intentionally emboldening the Trump campaign by relaxing advertising rules. Fellow Democrats echoed the concerns: Seema Nanda, C.E.O. of the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the social network’s ad policy “is a serious missed opportunity by Facebook.” At the same time, old fears that the company’s “I Voted” button, which has proved effective at boosting get-out-the-vote efforts, could give an outsize advantage to Mr. Trump are recirculating.

But Ms. Warren’s concerns miss a key point about the social network’s roles in elections.

Yes, Facebook’s willingness to let politicians lie sets a worrying precedent. And yes, lack of oversight into the platform’s decisions opens up a host of plausible election interference conspiracies. But Facebook’s essential threat to democracy isn’t that Mr. Zuckerberg will intervene on behalf of his preferred candidate — it’s more fundamental than that. Mark Zuckerberg need not intervene, because Facebook, the platform, will do so instinctively. With its algorithmic mandate of engagement over all else, Facebook has redefined what it means to be a good candidate — and provided a distinct natural advantage to those who distort the truth and seek to divide.

Few politicians have evidenced this phenomenon better than President Trump, the natural Facebook candidate. He’s light on policy but heavy on the sort of sweeping imagery that translates so easily to memes (some of his memes, like “The Wall,” eventually do become policy). Almost every iteration of his messaging is the type of polarizing content that is candy for Facebook’s algorithms.