It absolutely makes sense. What NetChoice held was that the curation aspect of algorithmic feeds makes the weighting approach equivalent to the speech of the platforms and therefore when courts evaluated challenges to government imposed regulation, they had to perform standard First Amendment analysis to determine if the contested regulation passed muster.

Importantly, this does not mean that before the Third Circuit decision platforms could just curate any which way they want and government couldn't regulate at all -- the mandatory removal regime around CSAM content is a great example of government regulating speech and forcing platforms to comply.

The Third Circuit decision, in a nutshell, is telling the platforms that they can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want to claim that their algorithmic feeds are speech that is protected from most government regulation, they can't simultaneously claim that these same algorithmic feeds are mere passive vessels for the speech of third parties. If that were the case, then their algorithms would enjoy no 1A protection from government regulation. (The content itself would still have 1A protection based on the rights of the creators, but the curation/ranking/privileging aspect would not).