The problem with this suit is that they take a bunch of features which are fairly bog standard (as they can be useful to users), and benign, and try to spin them as evidence of a conspiracy (even though they could never be ipso facto evidence of such).
"infinite scroll" is just a bog standard feature which sites use to make it convenient for users. The alternative would be to go out of their way to make their own sites harder to use.
"recommendation algorithms" Same here. While you could make an argument against them, I don't like this particular "won't anyone please think of the children?" argument, it's a tool which presumably helps people find the content they want.
"alerts" Alerts are convenient as you know when someone has responded to you without having to manually check.
"quantification and display of Likes" What site doesn't have likes?
Most of these features can be easily explained with "adding value for the user".
"Arguing the company’s primary “motive is profit” and “maximiz[ing] financial gains,”"
So, basically, someone is not allowed to run a for-profit social network?
The closest thing to a "smoking gun" here are the likes, and even then, this framing of a nefarious conspiracy is quite dubious. Also, isn't this a form of feedback, it's not hard to see why it proliferates.
