No. The FBI reached out to Facebook to let them know how Russia tended to try to influence US citizens with fake news or by amplifying fake aspects of real news using social networks, including Facebook.

A lot of folks thought this was bad because it led to Facebook not amplifying (not removing, not blocking, just not promoting) the Hunter Biden laptop claims, because the story met the hallmarks of what the FBI pointed out to the team. It still does.

Out of curiosity (honestly), how does it?

“The media's treatment of the dubious laptop story when the NY Post first published it in 2020 was actually 100% correct and there is zero basis to re-examine that conclusion. First much of the alleged story wasn't even news, as a significant amount of what the laptop purportedly contained was about business dealings that were publicly known about for years to the extent that they had been investigated by a GOP controlled Senate committee that cleared Biden of any corruption allegations. Second, it looked exactly like another Russian influence operation that should be treated cautiously and it looks the same way today. I was actually encouraged by the notion that the media may have learned something from 2016 as evidenced by the caution demonstrated in their reporting and treatment of the story, especially with Rudy refusing to allow journalists he wanted to write about it access to authenticate the materials.

Even if we assume the crazy sounding laptop repair shop story were 100% true, we had partisan political operatives shopping a story to journalists about the supposedly scandalous revelations cribbed from the contents of someone's stolen email communications and electronic data in the midst of a presidential election campaign homestretch. The fact that some of the information has since been authenticated by the nYT or WaPO as belonging to Hunter Biden doesn't change anything. The Clinton emails that were dumped by Wikileaks in 2016 were also authentic. Didn't make them any less stolen or render their release combined with the gross misrepresentation of their contents to feed unsupported narratives less problematic, nor did their authenticity make it any less a part of a Russian influence operation.”