The distinction you are making doesn't make sense. Are you making an analogy to the idea that you can use the word fire but you can't yell fire in a crowded place? Facebook doesn't choose individually what posts are highlighted, the engagement of other users does. The complete weights of what is highlighted are also unique per user. You're arguing that Facebook has a duty of care, but as it stands section 230 already addresses that. The duty of care is fulfilled with good faith moderation. The only way Facebook can be found liable is if section 230 is weakened and good faith moderation is redefined.
"Tort liability indicates that someone is held accountable for wrong actions (other than under contract." Tort liability is the phrase you would search if you wanted to learn about previous legal rulings related to this. I thought the Columbia Law Review article I linked was pretty approachable. It's not possible to talk about this in a meaningful way without understanding tort. I haven't tried to obscure or distract from my position intentionally.
I think Force v. Facebook was the proper ruling. There's nothing new courts have to decide, because section 230 already addresses this. Fundamentally, people are hateful and will engage and interact with hateful content. It doesn't make sense to blame an algorithm for not realizing a post is hateful and highlighting it. I made my position clear without technical jargon in the top comment. The DW article says the lawsuit wants to legally force Facebook to change its algorithm. The change would directly be related to moderation. This would be a slippery slope. Failing to understand the limitation of what an algorithm does is the only way you could expect a separation of the concept of posting content vs posting it "like that". I hope I was able to clarify my position.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/technology/section-230-he...
They do, by having control of the algorithm. It didn't just spring forth, they made it. More relevant, they have the off switch. "Good faith moderation" means monitoring the actual results of applying it and making changes if the results are harmful.
> It doesn't make sense to blame an algorithm for not realizing a post is hateful and highlighting it.
I'm not blaming the algorithm, I'm blaming the people who implemented it, failed to understand the potential consequences of using it in this way, and then failed to notice or understand what was happening.
You can't just abdicate moral responsibility by putting "the algorithm" between your actions and their consequences. A for loop and a couple of if statements is an algorithm. Someone makes it, gives it input, applies the output to some task. That is the culpable action, not whatever happens inside the algorithm.
Court isn't a context-free zone, they absolutely may consider what an entity did know or should have known about the future consequences of their actions. As in the different categories of negligence, which this is similar to.
Are you a lawyer why are you using their jargon so heavily? The lawyers will do that part, in the courts. Here, in this context, it's just another rhetorical flourish to distract attention away from your actual position. No one cares what a tort is just say your piece in normal words and stop trying to obscure it behind the facade of technical jargon.