Can you clarify your meaning? Genuinely trying to understand. Is it that Beth criticises partisan actions (if you consider FDA's actions partisan, or the CDC's renaming of the mpox), while being partisan herself, which is hypocritical?
Several times people here on HN dismissed factually accurate articles I posted, that cited all their claims to trusted, non-controversial sources [1], because they thought the article publisher was too right-wing. The only way such dismissals stop, is if they are applied evenly.
[1] E.g. government statistics, or public announcements by a university regarding their programs, in an article about what kind of programs that university offers. I.e. sources nobody disputed for those claims.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Sure, the US decision was certainly ideologically motivated (which isn't to say right or wrong) and one could notice that, but that rabid reaction to an absolute nothing is ridiculous and the arguments presented are questionable in tone and intellectual integrity (e.g. calling your side "the world" to put weight behind your opinion).
Let's be honest, since Ars has been bought by Condé Nast, it has progressively become something between Reddit and Gawkers.