Is your point that running ads is equivalent to the deceptive practices described in the original article? If so, can you make that a little more explicitly tha

Is your point that running ads is equivalent to the deceptive practices described in the original article? If so, can you make that a little more explicitly than your three-word argument ending in "etc"? It seems to me, on its face, that this argument is laughable. The entire premise of concerns about disinfo is that disinfo is (by definition) deliberately deceptive, typically--as in the cases mentioned in the article--deceptive in posture (claiming to be opinion rather than paid propaganda) and origin (claiming to be from organic sources, like real voters, rather than sock-puppets controlled by political actors). This criticism is, of course, not applicable to paid advertisements that disclose their source.