There’s plenty of counterexamples one who might wish to dismiss the idea that technology can reasonably manage things, but all things considered, given the number of _potential_ instance of mishap that do not regularly occur any the relatively minor consequences of the mishaps that do occur, I’d conclude that on the whole arguing the original poster’s position is not inherently ‘_silly_’.
> There’s plenty of counterexamples one who might wish to dismiss the idea that technology can reasonably manage things
Are there? How many historical precedents are there for "curation" at the scale of today's tech giants: Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple App Store, Amazon.com? IMO none of them do it well, or even reasonably.
> given the number of _potential_ instance of mishap that do not regularly occur
We only hear about the "notable" cases. Every day, people are accidentally or intentionally banned by Twitter or one of the other tech giants, and nobody ever hears about it, because these people are not famous and have nobody else to speak for them and raise a public fuss.
> any the relatively minor consequences of the mishaps that do occur
Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, you can hardly call the banning of the POTUS, for example, from the world's largest and most important social networks as a "relatively minor consequence". This is very consequential. You may think the consequences are good, or you may think they're bad, but it's consequential.
If these "mishaps" are not consequential, why are we all here talking about them?
