1. Sources are often arguable if they are legit or accurate. 

2. Elections are time sensitive. Ya only need to freeze a story temporarily to make it not worth anything regardless if it was accurate or not. 

3. They would abuse it. It would do more harm than good.

For example there’s a site called Anonymousnews which pretends to be Anonymous but really is run by the far right populist Mario Rönsch, who published sensationalist and mainly racist bullshit and lies, half-facts without context..exactly what could be considered fake news!

It’s only in German though. It’s like Breitbart but much worse I guess.

http://www.anonymousnews.ru/

Yeah.  Unfortunately, I think you are correct.

"which pretends to be Anonymous"

anyone can be considered a member of anonymous, they do not have a members list or anything like that

"who published sensationalist and mainly racist bullshit and lies, half-facts without context..exactly what could be considered fake news!"

examples?... and this site is separate from the facebook ads i suppose? or are the facebook ads based on this site?

The age of social media censorship will fully arrive, which isn't surprising at all. What's surprising to me is how many people are cheering its arrival. The actual fuck.

As is always true of censorship, there is one, and only one, principle driving all of this: power. Facebook will submit to and obey the censorship demands of governments and officials who actually wield power over it, while ignoring those who do not. That’s why declared enemies of the U.S. and Israeli governments are vulnerable to censorship measures by Facebook, whereas U.S and Israeli officials (and their most tyrannical and repressive allies) are not:

All of this illustrates that the same severe dangers from state censorship are raised at least as much by the pleas for Silicon Valley giants to more actively censor “bad speech.” Calls for state censorship may often be well-intentioned — a desire to protect marginalized groups from damaging “hate speech” — yet, predictably, they are far more often used against marginalized groups: to censor them rather than protect them. One need merely look at how hate speech laws are used in Europe, or on U.S. college campuses, to see that the censorship victims are often critics of European wars, or activists against Israeli occupation, or advocates for minority rights.

One can create a fantasy world in one’s head, if one wishes, in which Silicon Valley executives use their power to protect marginalized peoples around the world by censoring those who wish to harm them. But in the real world, that is nothing but a sad pipe dream. Just as governments will, these companies will use their censorship power to serve, not to undermine, the world’s most powerful factions.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/

Use some Google translate if you must.

and no, Anonymous have several times officially declared the guy stands against their ideas and is no part of Anonymous. The guy used to run the Facebook page for Anonymous.Kollektiv, his former name but was banned by Facebook a while ago for posting hate speech and misinformation.

There's a very easy way to make something unarguably true (stuff you learn in middle school, really...), don't say "this happened", say "source A states that this happened". If you have interpretation to add, "I believe that we can conclude this."

That's a habit all media sources should be taking, regardless.

Whether or not something is propaganda is objective though.

Does a news outlet continually make arguments in favor of one candidate and against another?

Does a news outlet give equal time to both sides?

Does a news outlet offer up opinions (socialism is good/bad) instead of facts (socialism would cost many/few dollars, according to the CBO).

These are just some related to the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine (over 10 000 deaths):

- "The unmarked soldiers that invaded Crimea are not Russian soldiers."

- "There are no Russian soldiers or military equipment in Eastern Ukraine."

- "The passenger plane that was shot down over Eastern Ukraine was downed by an Ukrainian military aircraft." (In reality it was shot down by a mobile anti-air missile-system that was brought from Russia, and was most likely operated by Russian soldiers.)

- "Ukraine is run by fascists." (In the 2014 elections that were held after Russia attacked Ukraine, the far-right party got 2 % of the votes. But that didn't stop the Russian state media news from reporting that the far-right party got majority of the votes.)

And there are countless of other straight up lies that Russia and its trolls make all the time on daily basis. It's almost at the absurdity-level of North-Korea.