I don't understand their claim it was inauthentic either. Their writeup says the pages claimed to be independent, but were actually linked to employees of Sput

I don't understand their claim it was inauthentic either. Their writeup says the pages claimed to be independent, but were actually linked to employees of Sputnik News. OK, but all the screenshots they showed (in the first batch) had the word "sputnik news" in the URL. That doesn't look very surreptitious to me, let alone inauthentic. If Sputnik employees are linking to stories they worked on or their employer published, how is that different to journalists tweeting stories from their news outlets on their personal Twitter accounts? Is there some formal rule now that all employees of news agencies have to loudly identify themselves as such before re-sharing content from their employer? If so, where did Facebook announce that? The odd way Facebook are describing this action also makes me wonder about their claim the accounts were "linked to" employees of Sputnik. What does that mean exactly? Not owned, if they were owned presumably Facebook would have said so. Rather they are "linked to". This could mean many things.