It makes you responsible for what your user sees and doesn’t see. If you’re not presenting info transparently by time or popularity, you’re editorializing.
Perhaps the reason there hasn’t been a big, precedent setting court case yet is the difficulty getting the data or seeing the editorializing. It seems like that veil is slowly coming down though through some of these court cases.
What comment on a local news article does Facebook decide to show me to drive engagement? Why was it picked instead of another?
I suppose one could get timestamps on their friends profiles and compare that to what was displayed to them.
The idea that Facebook can make these editorial decisions at the coding level yet not be liable like a newspaper, is one thing that needs to change.
First, your opinion on how things should work is separate from the discussion I was taking part in. "Editorializing" isn't relevant to the protection section 230 provides.
On your point, I'm not entirely sure what you want. Do you think Facebook should be sble face libel charges for how they present somebody else's post? Or do you want their ranking algorithm should be transparent. Should Google search results be considered the sane way?
For the purpose of this law, never. Promoting a post does not make you the creator of that post.