Abstract

As influenced by opposing legal philosophies—natural law, which emphasises intrinsic rights and social damage, and legal positivism, which prioritises codified law—this paper examines the divergent content moderation strategies of Meta and Twitter/X, which are reactive and proactive. To represent the strategic incentives of social media sites managing this legal conflict, Neumann-type game theory is used. By requiring platforms to show that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent algorithmic amplification of foreseeable harms, the novel "Algorithmic Duty of Care" legal standard—which aligns corporate strategy with both legal norms and ethical obligations—is the main contribution. Potential savings in preventable lawsuit expenses that might be attained by using this standard are quantified by comparing Meta, which emphasises algorithmic control, to Twitter/X, which emphasises free expression. Social media firms demonstrating the application of legal standards

Keywords