Ars Technica has an interesting article in which Timothy Lee rebuts the argument of Tim Wu, in which he says:
Protecting a computer's "speech" is only indirectly related to the purposes of the First Amendment, which is intended to protect actual humans against the evil of state censorship. The First Amendment has wandered far from its purposes when it is recruited to protect commercial automatons from regulatory scrutiny.
Should the output of a computer program designed to mimic human curation be protected under free speech?