Alright, imagine you're playing with your favorite toys at home. You and your friends have some rules for playing, like sharing or taking turns, right? Now, Facebook is like a big playground where lots of people play and share things. But sometimes, not everyone follows the rules. Some kids might not let others play with their toys (share information), or they might bully other kids.

So, to help keep the playground fun and fair for everyone, Facebook has "censors." Just like your parents at home, these censors make sure that people are following the rules and no one is being mean or hurting anyone's feelings. They look at what everyone is doing and decide if it's okay or not.

But sometimes, even grown-ups can make mistakes or have different ideas about what's right and wrong. So, some people think that Facebook's censors might be making decisions that aren't fair all the time. Some folks say that Facebook should let more things slide, while others want them to be stricter with their rules.

In the case of cannabis (that's a special kind of plant that some adults use for medicine or fun), some people think that Facebook shouldn't allow discussions about it at all because it's against the law in some places. But others say that since more and more states are saying it's okay to use, Facebook should let people talk about it openly.

That's why you're seeing all this confusion right now - everyone has different ideas about what should or shouldn't be allowed on Facebook! Just like when your friends can't agree on a game to play at recess. Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are some elements of journalistic criticism applied to a story about cannabis censorship on Facebook:

1. **Fact-Checking andAccuracy**:
- *Inconsistency*: The article mentions that Facebook searches for cannabis-related terms now yield results, yet specific examples given (e.g., searches for "Massachusetts marijuana laws" or "[legalize] [cannabis]" returning blank pages) contradict this claim.

2. **Bias**:
- *Pro-cannabis bias*: The article heavily focuses on the cannabis industry's perspective and does not provide meaningful counterarguments from Facebook regarding their policies or challenges in enforcing them.
- * Selection bias*: The article relies solely on sources supporting the narrative that Facebook is excessively censoring content related to cannabis.

3. **Irrational Arguments**:
- *Oversimplification*: The argument that "Facebook should not be in the business of dictating what is an appropriate topic for conversation" oversimplifies the complex issue of balancing freedom of speech with platform rules and legal obligations.
- *False equivalency*: Comparing cannabis to alcohol or tobacco, which are legal, ignores the nuances of current drug scheduling and laws.

4. **Emotional Behavior**:
- *Fear-mongering*: Using phrases like "Facebook is literally censoring information that could change lives" and "cannabis censorship is stifling progress" may appeal to emotion but lacks concrete evidence supporting these strong claims.
- *Anxiety*: Expressing concerns about users' "data being used against them" without providing specific instances of misuses could unnecessarily raise readers' anxiety.

5. **Lack of Context and Balance**:
- The article fails to provide context on why Facebook's policies regarding cannabis are what they are (e.g., complying with US federal laws, battling organized crime using the platform for illegal transactions).
- It lacks balance by not including viewpoints from Facebook or neutral parties, presenting only one side of the argument.

Based on the provided article, here's a sentiment analysis:

- **Sentiment**: Neutral to slightly bearish.
- **Reasoning**:
- The article discusses issues of censorship and concerns about free speech on Facebook (now Meta) regarding cannabis content.
- There are no explicit positive statements, only reports of issues and calls for change.
- While it doesn't actively bash Meta or the current policies, the lack of positive sentiment makes the overall tone slightly bearish.