Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 39

2 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

those functions is complicated enough without simultane-
ously  analyzing  how  it  bears  on  a  platform’s  other  func-
tions—e.g., Facebook Messenger and Google Search—much 
less to distinct platforms like Uber and Etsy.  In fact, deal-
ing with a broad swath of varied platforms and functions in
a facial challenge strikes me as a daunting, if not impossi-
ble, task.  A function qualifies for First Amendment protec-
tion  only  if  it  is  inherently  expressive.  Hurley  v.  Irish-
American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 
515  U. S.  557,  568  (1995).    Even  for  a  prototypical  social-
media feed, making this determination involves more than 
meets the eye. 

Consider, for instance, how platforms use algorithms to
prioritize and remove content on their feeds.  Assume that 
human beings decide to remove posts promoting a particu-
lar  political  candidate  or  advocating  some  position  on  a 
public-health  issue.  If  they  create  an  algorithm  to  help
them  identify  and  delete  that  content,  the  First  Amend-
ment protects their exercise of editorial judgment—even if 
the algorithm does most of the deleting without a person in
the loop.  In that event, the algorithm would simply imple-
ment  human  beings’  inherently  expressive  choice  “to  ex-
clude a message [they] did not like from” their speech com-
pilation.  Id., at 574. 

But what if a platform’s algorithm just presents automat-
ically to each user whatever the algorithm thinks the user
will like—e.g., content similar to posts with which the user
previously  engaged?  See  ante,  at  22,  n. 5.    The  First 
Amendment  implications  of  the  Florida  and  Texas  laws 
might  be  different  for  that  kind  of  algorithm.    And  what 
about AI, which is rapidly evolving?  What if a platform’s
owners  hand  the  reins  to  an  AI  tool  and  ask  it  simply  to
remove “hateful” content?  If the AI relies on large language
models  to  determine  what  is  “hateful”  and  should  be  re-
moved,  has  a  human  being  with  First  Amendment  rights
made an inherently expressive “choice . . . not to propound