"This article criticizes Facebook for firing the human editors that had been keeping things sane."
Read your comment. Let's think. What you mean is, Facebook fired human editors, who they contracted out moderation to. They contracted this job out, and kept it on the down low, because it was a breach of their promise with users of their platform. "keeping things sane." What exactly does this comment mean? What you mean by that, I assume, is 'don't allow anything to trend that might upset the leftist 'social justice warriors.' In other words, keeping things sane, meant don't allow posts to trend, that contradict, or prove false, the beliefs of the people whose primary mechanism of accomplishing agenda, is to 'get triggered' or to freak out, cause a scene, cry foul. The primary class of posts that could have or as Facebook claims 'should have' been censored, were Wikileaks. The Wikileaks were DKIM verified, and of reliable source. They were however not in the best interest of the left. They helped Donald Trump win. They spread the word, that Hillary Clinton was lying about a plethora of different things. These "Social Justice Warriors' believe that the US, themselves, and Hillary herself deserve to be president. Their response to people posting anti-Hillary ads, memes, leaks, or posts, is to flame them. Attack them. So what you are claiming, is that Facebook should have done a better job, of keeping things sane; a better job of limiting contradictory ads, statements, and shares from Hillary's opponent or opposing voters. Facebook was extremely sane during the weeks leading to election. Any insanity before election day I assume, was people have arguments or conversations on each others posts, discussing who to vote for. Are you suggesting that we should have silenced these debates? Are you suggesting we should have blocked Trump ads? I pushed a lot of content on Twitter and Facebook, and the majority of it was generated by users on Reddit. I have a list of 75 top ten trending Hashtags, which were removed from twitter by moderators. They were removed from the trending list. The list of 75 hashtags, are entirely non-violent, non-harrassing, and simply brief descriptions of illegal or unsettling things that Hillary Clinton said or did during her time in office. They are summaries of quotes from Wikileaks emails. Are you telling me that removing those hash tags was simply a peace-keeping measure? Are you saying that this was not blatant censorship to push Twitter's own agenda?