What "automated" part, I see no "automated" in the OP, but perhaps it was meant. So far we have:

1. "opposed to the fundamental notion that human beings are capable of cooperation and altruism at scale" - a complicated statement, I think it means that keeping people under control stops them from being naturally good.

2. The scale, or as another comment said, "It's harmful when it scales to hundreds of data points across different areas", but why?

3. That comment continues "is automated, and has almost no oversight or accountability baked into the system." It's not clear why anything would be better when inefficient, but here we have an appeal to common sense and some sort of appeals process.

This is rather messy. I get the impression of an argument for case-by-case human decisions.

It reminds me of the data gathering done by businesses, which doesn't even technically harm me or lead to decisions about me personally, but still pisses me off. I'm happy for a store manager to contemplatively watch me shopping while incubating business decisions, but I don't want to be distilled into statistics, it's just offensive - I suppose because it's impersonal. "How do these humans behave mechanically?" is the question implied by the data-gathering.