Do M.P.'s state common law tort claims adequately plead conduct by Facebook in recommending content and groups to Dylann Roof that fall outside of Section 230 'immunity'?

According to a member of Meta’s “Core Data Science Team,” its product, Facebook , knowingly creates negative “emotional contagion” t hrough algorithms that prioritize divisive and polarizing content, including hate speech and misinformation about racial groups . Facebook does this to drive use . It was thus foreseeable, and actually foreseen, by Meta that Facebook could radicalize vulnerable minds and lead them to violence. By design, Facebook provided individualized recommendations based on personal profiles created within the application that, according to Facebook’s first Director of Monetization “rais[ed] the voices of division, anger, hate, and misinformation to drown out the voices of truth, justice, morality, and peace .” After Facebook ’s algori thms recommended (1) viewing inflammatory content and (2) joining white supremacist groups to Dylann Roof, Roof became radicalized in large part by his Facebook activity. He then entered Plaintiff M.P’s church and murdered her father, Reverend Clementa Pinckney, and eight parish ioners in an effort to “start a race war .” The questions presented are: (1) Do M.P.’s state common law tort claims adequately plead conduct by Facebook in recom mending content to Dylann Roof that fall outside of Section 230 “immunity?” (2) Do M.P.’s state common law tort claims adequately plead conduct by Facebook in recom mending groups to Dylann Roof that fall outside of Section 230 “immunity?”