Meta argues its algorithms are protected editorial speech in Texas — and just neutral pipes in Section 230 defenses
CASE A
NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (consolidated; Meta as NetChoice member)
Algorithmic feed ranking, content moderation, and amplification choices are protected editorial speech of the platform; Texas HB20 unconstitutionally compels speech by limiting Meta's ability to curate its product.Source ↗
CASE B
Force v. Facebook, Inc. (and progeny under 47 U.S.C. § 230)
Algorithmic amplification of third-party content is not the platform's own speech; Facebook is a neutral interactive computer service entitled to full § 230 immunity for the editorial outcomes of its ranking algorithms.Source ↗
// THE PARADOX
The same ranking-and-amplification system is described as 'protected editorial speech' when Meta wants to defeat must-carry laws, and as 'neutral conduit conduct of an interactive computer service' when Meta wants § 230 immunity for the consequences of that ranking. Either the algorithmic curation is the platform's speech (and therefore the platform owns its results) or it isn't (and therefore the platform can be regulated like a neutral carrier). Meta argues the position that benefits it in each forum.