This is just one of a constant stream of stories from the Guardian that boil down to "people are sheep and their opinions are formed by a sinister conspiracy to manipulate them". It is a fundamental part of their worldview, which is why they're so against referendums to begin with.

Indeed, the entire premise of this article is that people make up their mind based on what they see on Facebook, although Leave voters trend old (i.e. the people least likely to heavily use Facebook). The idea that it's sinister and scary comes from an academic "expert". This way of thinking has been pushed so hard by the left wing and pro-EU segment of media and society:

• Trust experts, not yourself.

• People who disagree with us are merely influenced by lies.

• It should be (pro-EU) MPs, not a referendum result, that decides what happens.

• When courts overrule referendums, that's democracy.

• Referendums are a bad idea because the outcome is pre-determined by whoever lies the most/spends the most money/is best at manipulation/etc.

It's a worldview that dehumanises anyone who disagrees and makes fools of anyone who adopts it, as the endless shrill cries of "what about the £350 million for the NHS" make clear - as if no lies were told by the Remain campaign! Emergency budgets that never happened, an insta-recession that never happened, Cameron saying he'd stay on and then immediately resigning, Obama saying the USA would shun the UK, the £4300/yr figure that was dropped the moment the Treasury produced it because it was clear this "expert prediction" was nonsense, the "we can stay in a reformed EU" despite the actual leaders of the EU saying that wasn't going to happen, etc etc.

But despite all that, only one side constantly harps on the idea that the vote wasn't reliable because of nonsense said by politicians: the side that never believed in voting to begin with.