Not necessarily - if their goal is to get Facebook to reverse the change (which I imagine it is based on the fact that the website is based in an area with a lot of civil unrest), then providing reasonable rationalization in the article isn't what you want to do.
In that case this isn't journalism but propaganda (even if its the good kind). Lobbyists do the same thing yet we all hate them for it, these guys shouldn't get a free pass and get to call it journalism if they aren't portraying both sides.
Edit: fixed mobile typos
I've now been able to reach the page to read is myself. How is this propaganda? What's the other side to exposing activists to observation by oppressive regimes?
That term "more complete" is your own standard, and not one of journalism. "More complete" can go on for ever.