I wonder if mainstream social media platforms would choose to downrank this story, and others like it. The organization in question (AOPO), that pushed forward

I wonder if mainstream social media platforms would choose to downrank this story, and others like it. The organization in question (AOPO), that pushed forward to kill the drug-overdose victim and harvest their organs, cries that they're a victim of "malicious misinformation and defamatory attacks based on hearsay". Do the social media employees listen to that? If highly-credentialed, national medical nonprofits go to Meta or Google and allege something is "misinformation", is that an automatic "yeah sure, we'll suppress it and limit its reach"? In the alternative: if they look into it, and realize donors will stop registering if these news articles are widely publicized, would they go ahead anyway and censor true facts, out of utilitarian logic? That would be consistent with the ethics reasoning those corporations have used in the past.