This is intentional: make people think there's nothing online except harmful content, and propose a regulatory solution, which creates a barrier to entry. It's "meta" trying to stop any insurgent network.
It’s also meta overstating the power of influence. Why would they do that? Because it’s good marketing for them to sell a story around how their services running ads can be used for highly effective mass influence.
Yes, like the "Cambridge Analytica scandal." The "scandal" was people using their ad marketplace tools and a 100-line Python script to "hack" a presidential election. Also, the "Russian Election Interference" aka someone doing a $50k ad buy and "hacking" the presidential election.
