I would assume some good faith on their part. Verification would be valuable, but so would timely release of information. If the reports are true, an active harm to those organizations are being done, and it would be valuable for the public to know sooner than later. If you attempt to verify the information, but it's taking more time and resources than you have to do the job quickly, releasing the information with attribution to a reputable source is the least harmful option.

> but so would timely release of information. If the reports are true, an active harm to those organizations are being done, and it would be valuable for the public to know sooner than later.

I do not believe that that is The Guardian’s goal with this reporting. If it were, wouldn’t it make more sense to list the organizations (provide actionable information), rather than spending time telling a story?

I also have a hard time seeing the harm or the size thereof without knowing more context about any of the organizations, what they do, and how much they rely or depend on Facebook to be effective.

If I were an organization that had my Facebook account suspended unfairly or unjustly, I would simply find a different way to stay in touch with others. Meta does not owe me anything