No, they really can't. What Morozov is asking for, in essence, is effective DRM.
The solution proposed here is "Don't have data". Because if we stick our heads in a hole, it'll all get better?
This is obviously nonsense.
I don't think this is the solution Morozov is proposing. He's just saying that collecting and distributing more data will not necessarily be beneficial because data interpretation is subjective and data collection may be biased.
I hate to be overly dramatic about this, but didn't the Church worry about the Truth being perverted after Gutenberg? Didn't penny newspapers cause problems for the Founding Fathers?
Morozov doesn't worry about the correct application of data but, from what I understood reading the link, is more worried about this:
"Morozov fears a future in which such “intuitive knowledge” about how to deploy resources is overruled by algorithms that can work only with hard data and can’t, of course, account for the data they don’t have."
It could be argued that decisions based on "intuitive knowledge" without any data are as biased as the one's based on only data.
He tries to weasel word differentiate between "intuitive knowledge" (really: human based algorithms) and "algorithms", when they are all really just algorithms.
He doesn't explain at all why his algorithms are better than any a computer could use, or for that matter, why a computer couldn't implement the same algorithms that back his "intuitive knowledge".