Are we being unfair by only pointing to how FB had a negative impact on the US election? Unlike the other platforms, Facebook and Twitter are the only ones tha

Are we being unfair by only pointing to how FB had a negative impact on the US election? Unlike the other platforms, Facebook and Twitter are the only ones that also manage the content that the end-user sees. This would be fine if it was only targeted ads, but it's all content that can be manipulated. A user may think they are seeing a legitimate news story or a post 'liked' from their friends. This gives it much more weight than an Adsense ad on a website. There's also the social metrics that can be used to target you - many people were targeted with anti-Hillary news (true or fake) even though they weren't Trump supporters. This was done to sew voter apathy into the election, turning a 'might as well vote Hillary' (say, Bernie supporters) into a 'why bother' - no vote is half as bad as a vote for the other candidate. And this exact thing happened in swing states where Hillary ended up with really bad turnout, thus costing her the election. I can't think of a way Google or other ad networks could pull this off, that's why it's fair to attack Facebook over this.