It makes perfect sense considering the wider public understands "algorithm" as "big,opaque,unknowable way of doing something probably tilted towards interests of the corporation/government", which is how the word has been used in mass media for years.
Kind of like the word "agenda", which basically just means a "to-do list". But an "agenda" often represents the accusation that you've got a secret nefarious goal.
Or even "rhetoric" which is just the term for the art of speaking well, but now has been taken to imply flashy and dishonest tricks of speech.
"Algorithm" is similar to "cloud" and (much earlier) "online" in that it's acquired a popular/marketing meaning distinct from its original technical meaning. It's an example of an improper noun[1].
I can't recall where I saw it, but a few years ago I saw an interview that involved some techie. The host asked them about Twitter and said, "what if we get rid of the algorithm, and, say, put everything chronoligically." The interviewee responded with "Well if you get rid of the current algorithm and replace it with that, you'll have an algorithm that sorts in chronological order." to which the interviewer's response was, "no, I'm saying we get rid of the algorithm."
I think most people don't regard something they could easily—if tediously—do by hand without ever so much as thinking of a mathematical symbol or operation (I mean, I guess they do a bit of you're sorting by numbers, but "is this number/date higher or lower?" only barely qualifies as math for most people, if at all) as algorithmic, even if it entirely is, by the strict definition.
They aren't complaining about algorithms. They are complaining about an algorithm that determines what people should see for the sole purpose of increasing some engagement metric. This does not necessarily mean giving the person what they want to see.