In case you didn’t want to wade through 20 paragraphs of boilerplate about social news sharing before getting to the obvious punchline.
> there’s a hierarchy in the New York Post [...] different people that they don’t like. [...]And if you pay attention, you can start to identify some of the rankings that they have.
> [...]Um, the number one thing that you can be in the eyes of the New York Post is an angel. An angel is a child who has died. That is the best thing that you can be in the eyes of the New York Post.
> [...]Down towards the bottom of the spectrum, there are pervs. Pervs touch tots
People are drawn to news about "bad guys" and for some reason, sexual predators seem to be the most compelling kid of bad guy. Which likely also explains their popularity in crime drama plots.
I'm irritated, though, that the article can't offer any support for any of those claims. I understand that Facebook isn't forthcoming about their algorithms, but there are several hints that this piece is trying to build a "scary evil social media" narrative rather than simply seeking answers. In particular, the line "While no sources I talked to suggested this..." looks like journalistic shorthand for "No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get a sourced quote with which to claim that..."
This story is definitely more interesting than a simple clickbait headline, but I'm reluctant to trust the specific theories on offer here.