I think they were referring to how the article seemed to be one-sided. It didn't mention any of the controversy around the link provided by the (currently) top rated comment in this discussion [0], which talked about how poorly trained these security people are, how they have broken the law, beat up and shot people, how the local prosecutors are not happy with the situation, etc.

It would have been a more fair article if they mentioned this other stuff, but they didn't, it only painted them in the best light possible. Call that a lie of omission. Some people are more sensitive to being manipulated.

[0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...