No you obviously didn't read it. It writes exactly "OK, they have a stupid AI that is worse than good old filters. OK, they made it react immediately, as an undoubted authority. But that’s not a big problem, right? They provide a way to appeal! Let me do that."
If you say that it's not a depiction of what someone thinks and does facing something, you just need to improve reading skills.
And basically that wasn't something important in the article; I made it rather clear. Their following catch22 was the most likable thing IMO; that was what I explicitly emphasized.
I wonder why do I write all that, though. If someone just wants to find something irrelevant, and build their criticism on that, there's no way to prevent it.