"do you think the critics of Facebook critics are all tied to Soros"

No, I didn't even suggest that.

But if Soros is actively funding FB criticism or litigation, then exposing that is definitely fair game.

What is fair game? And why? Just because you said it might be true? But then deny you're saying it is true?

I'm not following.

It seems your idea of what is 'fair game' or what happened and what Facebook's hired PR firm actually did are totally disconnected...

It's 'fair game' to expose who is funding which political or public activities, because it would be the truth.

Were it done by a journalist, it would be called 'journalism', for example.

Soros is funding individuals behind the group 'Freedom from Facebook' - it's perfectly reasonable for Facebook to highlight that fact.

Now I don't know all the details behind the game, but exposing the financial agents of those attacking you (or anyone else) is perfectly reasonable.

Honestly your own posts seem like a disinformation campaign.

Vague phrases like 'fair game' and 'what if its true' and lies like 'they're not allowed to prove it' seem to legitimize anything Facebook did without actually talking about WHAT they did and then you drop truthy goalpost moving tidbits here or there about related... and yet not entirely on point as to Facebook's actual actions.

>They're not allowed to prove it

I'm not sure what that means. Facebook can surely say "hey the PR firm we hired told the truth and here it is", but as far as I know they've chosen not to.