I'm not sure what all these articles are complaining. Facebook is in the business of selling influence, just like Google or Twitter, that's how they make money. The product is people's attention span, just like TV or newspapers or any website or business financed by advertisement.
So what is the problem here? the fact that anybody around the world can buy influence on Facebook? When you needed millions before to buy a spot on TV or newspapers?
It's the black smith complaining about the automaker all over again.
The issue is much more subtle than the blacksmith compaining about the automaker.
A simplified version goes something like: Social media feeds are controlled by computer algorithms (AI) and the psychological, social, and political effects of social media are, at best, poorly understood and may, at worst, run counter to the long term goals of the humans building and using those systems.
Also, because these systems are generally autonomous (complex-ish AI), systems which do run counter to the goals of society may be doing so without the intention of the systems' builders.
This was covered here on HN a few days ago [0] and the featured video by Zeynep Tufecki is clear and accessible (23 mins). [1]
Another compelling analysis into the unexpected negative effects of AI in social media (in the domain of YouTube children's videos) is James Bridle's "Something is wrong on the internet" which was featured on HN back in November of this year. [2]
So what is the problem here? the fact that anybody around the world can buy influence on Facebook? When you needed millions before to buy a spot on TV or newspapers?
It's the black smith complaining about the automaker all over again.