Well sure. If the algorithms were all implemented perfectly, and performed as we would want relative to every possible evaluative criterion, then nobody would have a reason to object to the use of algorithms. I don't suggest holding your breath until this becomes the case, though. One of the interesting things highlighted by the article is the sheer diversity of evaluative criteria. A thoroughly inculturated human can usually navigate these complex systems of values in a way that remains extremely difficult to implement algorithmically.

In the meantime, when the algorithms we have fail to perform as we'd like, the damage they cause is multiplied by the very efficiency gain that makes them appealing. That's the macro-scale problem. And on an individual basis, the affected person has a difficult time reversing the damage to himself, because the human bureaucracy will tend to defer to the algorithm.

Given that it is the mere fact that an algorithm is used, combined by the effective impossibility of perfect algorithms in the context of complex social functions (and humans' tendency to defer to their results, even when incorrect), that causes the harm, I don't see what's wrong with saying that algorithms can ruin lives.

If not this, then what, to your mind, would it take to make good on that headline?

An un-implemented algorithm is just an abstraction.

Every algorithm has edge cases. You can try to find and handle these with special cases, but they will continue to crop up especially when you use them on real humans.

Humans come in an amazing variety of configurations. For some reason youtube wants me to watch alcohol ads in russian and spanish, even though I don't drink or speak russian (and poor spanish)