That's not what the comment said. Here is the conversation:
Original comment: You can hire lots of humans to work at a normal pace and give them psychological counseling, and spend so much on their salaries that you'll go out of business, and even then they won't catch everything and will be frequently accused of bias.
Reply: Then you should not fucking be in the business at all! What FB does is externalizing the cost onto societies and skimming the profit!
I still fail to see how that is a coherent and relevant reply. It comes across as shouting and venting rather than substantive.
Are you a non-native English speaker? It is perhaps not a very elegant response, but it's perfectly coherent and relevant.
Consider the original comment to be the first clause in an 'if-then' sentence, i.e. "IF the cost of hiring lots of humans to work at a normal pace and giving them psychological counseling causes you to go out of business, THEN you should not fucking be in the business at all, BECAUSE otherwise you are externalizing the cost onto society and skimming the profit."
Original comment: You can hire lots of humans to work at a normal pace and give them psychological counseling, and spend so much on their salaries that you'll go out of business, and even then they won't catch everything and will be frequently accused of bias.
Reply: Then you should not fucking be in the business at all! What FB does is externalizing the cost onto societies and skimming the profit!
I still fail to see how that is a coherent and relevant reply. It comes across as shouting and venting rather than substantive.