I wouldn't think of this as a binary choice between algorithmic editing and human editing.

The only reason it feels binary is because big tech (with the notable exception of content used by search algorithms) has an impregnable vertical monopoly on content production, feed prioritization and user activity statistics.

If regulators forced competition into big tech vertical monopolies then we could return to the days of healthy media competition.

They could for example, force Facebook to offer alternative feed algorithms (e.g. a right leaning Daily Mail algorithm, a left leaning Daily Mirror algorithm, a broadsheet Financial Times algorithm and so on) to its users. This would require them to share social graph content and activity statistics with other providers. Inevitably they would still control the lions share of users (few users change their defaults after all) but at least it would usher in an era of potential competition.

To a certain extent we can already see the possiblity of a competitve social landscape in the battle between TikTok and Insta over reels. Content producers often publish identical content (short form vertical video with music) simutaneously on both platforms. User choice is then between the algorithms. TikToks' narcotic feed or Insta's more sedate ambling feed. Personally I find both over pushy but there are millions of users who are happy to be glued to the scroll.

It's our job, as society, to ensure that healthy alternatives exist and then to market them.