According to Zuckerberg himself the story was censored for a week (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62

According to Zuckerberg himself the story was censored for a week (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532). Meanwhile, Twitter banned any sharing of the article and the entire New York Post's account for 16 days. The US anti-war movement was explicitly, objectively supported by the Soviets at a time when they were a likely nuclear threat to the United States and the rest of the Western world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement#:~:text=Russian%20GRU%20defector%20Stanislav%20Lunev,the%20VietCong%2C%20although%20he%20does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_...). That doesn't mean it's acceptable to go and ban anti-war rallies, or rallies that "look like" them and claim it's okay because you only did so for a few weeks so it's all fine. Regardless, the issue here is less about partisan social media censorship and more to do with journalists, who Wikipedia relies on to provide factual reporting of all significant news, showing how readily they would support censorship and ignoring a story based on its political impact.