Comment by fc417fc802
3 days ago
I don't think the case law you're citing says what you claim it does.
> is directed to accommodate messages it would prefer to exclude.
That says speech can't be compeled, which is consistent with lots of past case law. That doesn't mean various forms of expression can't be incidentally restricted by regulation that exists for some other legitimate purpose.
Of course the court could decide that algorithmic feeds are a protected form of expression that product regulations can't directly target. But in doing so they would (IIUC) be recognizing them as a form of intentional editorial expression and thus their output would no longer (again IIUC) receive section 230 protection. That would presumably constitute a de facto ban due to the imposed liability.
I mean, sure, but the only reason the court didn't answer the question of whether algorithmic feeds were forms of speech was because the justices decided to take the easy way out and reject it on procedural grounds.