The passive voice of "Facebook...has been assailed" is amusing given that the present publication has been the one leading the charge. The central exhibit of t

The passive voice of "Facebook...has been assailed" is amusing given that the present publication has been the one leading the charge. The central exhibit of this piece is an assertion is that a political ad should be censored by Facebook and others because it "falsely claimed [Biden] committed corrupt acts in Ukraine". It did not make such a claim. The ad, which was much harder to find than the dozens of articles declaring it "false", repeated a video statement by Biden that he used a US-backed loan deal to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired, and it repeated a statement by the Ukrainian prosecutor claiming he was fired because he was investigating a company associated with Biden's son. But other sources assert that the US wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he was corrupt himself, or because he was getting in the way of other corruption probes. See https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-misleads-on-biden-and-ukraine/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-misleads-... and https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-20... for the ad and two fairly well researched but opposing takes on the issue. This isn't libel, this isn't accusing someone of a crime, this didn't fabricate sources or quotes: it's just political innuendo. Demanding censorship of electoral material because it's tacky or slightly misleading by dubbing it "false propaganda" doesn't seem right.