An automated system had a false-positive that was later corrected manually. The news here is that the system works?
I think if we design artificial idiots, and entrust them to gatekeep our society's communications, it's newsworthy to point that fact out.
Unfortunately that allows bad actors to game the system, but not quickly responding to reports allows the truly heinous content to remain on the site for longer.
Facebook gets a lot of bad PR for having lots of misinformation.
It makes sense from a business perspective to overcorrect, because general public is way more angry about potential misinformation than people having their normal posts taken down.
Again, not saying it’s justified, but having 1 major anti-vaccine post get through would be way worse for public image then 100 Christmas greetings being taken down and then corrected.
It may feel that way from inside Facebook, headquartered in a place so left wing it's basically decriminalized theft. It doesn't look that way from many other parts of the world, where many people believe that "misinformation" is a dystopian propaganda term meaning any statement unacceptable to the hard left, that "fact checking" is a joke and that all kinds of important and useful information is being censored by tech firms.
Stuff like this always reminds me about this story [0], that became only a story because the editor of a rather well known Norwegian newspaper ran into that problem himself.
There is no telling how many people before him ran into the same issue, and just went; "Well, I guess then I can't do anything about it" because they didn't have the ability to publish this issue in a renowned traditional news media, which actually gets it attention.
At best those other people might have described their experience somewhere, and probably got called conspiracy nuts for it.