I'd argue that reduction is required for qualitative decisionmaking and so is no barrier to legitimate opinion.

First, because we can never know everything that is going on outside of investigations like this one and public statements by FB.

Second, language is a lossy codec for thought, so the investigations and public statements by FB are themselves reductive. It's turtles all the way down.

This applies to both examples then: thinking FB is good or bad, and being required to eliminate reduction in order to make that decision.