I think there's very serious concerns to a society which seems to consume most of it's media as curated by AI and their online friends as opposed to say, a newspaper editor.
Especially when it seems like, half the time, people don't even read the articles and just get outraged by the headline which they assume to be true.
And the whole, people being in bubbles with their own viewpoint cannot be a positive.
Be careful - AIs may be wrong and manipulated and with authors with agendas, and newspaper editors can be wrong and manipulated and have agendas. There are countless example of newspapers being wrong and creating a narrative in the past (ex: look at "manufacturing consent" book) to either support the government or cover their (or the government) mistakes, or just plainly hide facts. And with media concentration, this is just going to get worse and worse :)
Or look at what the reaction by the NYT (or WaPo, or media in general) was to the massive social media presence and access of the Obama campaign [1] compared to what their reaction were after Trump won and they needed a scapegoat to somewhat make sense of it even after some voices called (on TV) for a moment of reflection about the dangers of them "being cheerleaders" [2].
Always remember "engagement" is a metric very important for newspapers too - their business model is selling ads, exactly like facebook does!
I never said anyone should put their full faith in newspapers.
But they're certainly better edited than the Facebook feed.
Secondly, HN tends toward the far progressive end of the cultural spectrum (with libertarian streaks). And in the shocked and confused search for explanations, as to how a boorish game show host could win a Presidential election, Facebook has emerged as a prominent scapegoat.
Lastly, but not least, HN's demographics seem to skew young, while FB's demographics are clearly trending older. The more that trend continues, the more FB will be seen representing a tribal "other".