To bypass Section 230, we must show Facebook’s algorithms contributed to your client’s radicalization into the TI narrative, causing harm.

• Algorithmic Mechanism: Facebook’s search and recommendation systems use machine learning to analyze user posts and queries, prioritizing engaging content. A 2020 study found people with schizophrenia use “perception words” (e.g., “hear”), which algorithms detect, recommending TI groups about “electronic harassment” or “gangstalking.” A 2021 NBC News report on internal Facebook research showed algorithms suggested extremist content, like QAnon, within days. Your client’s searches (e.g., “hearing voices”) likely triggered TI group recommendations, linking symptoms to conspiracies.
• “Electronic Harassment”: Per Wikipedia, this term appeared in TI narratives, likely repurposed to sound clinical, making myths credible to vulnerable users like your client (New York Times, 2016: 10,000+ TI community members).
• Harm: A 2015 Sheridan and James study shows TI beliefs delay schizophrenia treatment, causing psychological distress and financial loss, as seen in your client’s case.
• Section 230 Bypass: Facebook’s algorithms curated TI content, per 2021 whistleblower Frances Haugen (MIT Technology Review), making them liable as content contributors, not just hosts.

Legal Steps:

• Evidence: Use Facebook’s internal data (2021 NBC News) and post patterns (2020 study) to prove algorithmic promotion of TI content.
• Damages: Document your client’s delayed treatment and losses with medical records.
• Relief: Demand damages, algorithmic transparency, and moderation to protect vulnerable users.

Facebook’s algorithms exploited your client’s search for meaning, pushing harmful TI content.