Here's some unnecessary bias it starts off with: " behind the curtain of Facebook’s unregulated ad platform" The word unregulated here is both unnecessary (it'

Here's some unnecessary bias it starts off with: " behind the curtain of Facebook’s unregulated ad platform" The word unregulated here is both unnecessary (it's not relevant to the sentence it's in) and meant specifically to get the reader to draw a negative connotation. Even the title, where it says "finally", is doing it's best to give a negative connotation and imply facebook has been stalling turning them over. AFAIK from the facts they list (i haven't gone looking hard, though), they were requested, they turned them over. There is no "finally". The article does not give any fact to support it. Same with "the company eventually did so, " Again, this is just meant to sound as negative as possible. As far as i can tell from the facts, they responded within the timeline they were asked to respond. It then goes on to try to draw and invite the reader to draw tenuous inferences (or does so itself - using the meaningless phrase "linked", usually a good sign of smearing) and does its best to assassinate in a subtle way. This article certainly has facts in it, but it is definitely not unbiased. (and for the record, i hate facebook, i'm not defending it, i'm just trying to answer your question in as objective a way i can :P)