Sorting is an algorithm that organizes content. Auto-moderation is an algorithm that editorially curates content.
The conversation is about Section 230, which is ruling on whether companies can be held liable for editorial curation algorithms.
One question before the court, at least from the perspective of Reddit's brief, is whether voters whose input influences an editorial curation algorithm could be held liable and sued with enough merit to warrant a defense if Section 230 is removed.
@jedberg's point, at least in my reading, is that the r/law poster is equating the "hot" list with an editorial curation ("recommendation") algorithm, when the "hot" list is a content-neutral sorting algorithm.
Sorting is technically an algorithm, so saying "but sorting is an algorithm" is the best kind of correct. It's just not a very valuable correctness for this conversation.
This is an absurd distinction. Whether you a sort million posts by date, or by how likely a user is to be interested in them, you are curating in the same sense.
When people, tech news, non-tech people, say "The FACEBOOK algorithm" or the "TIKTOK" algorithm, they are talking about the opaque recommendation engine that works on each individual user based on the likes, preferences, viewed pages, and probably things like location, time spent looking at a random video, and a hundred other things.
It's about individual recommendations based on lots of datapoints vs. a more direct sorting based on global trending.
