But the definition there doesn't say anything remotely like the Salon quote. Someone could argue that it's implied, but there's no reason to automatically accept that argument as compelling. It's much more likely that it's a highly contested implication.

Presenting a contested implication of X as a fact about X is basically lying. For example, suppose I observe you advocating for solar panels in a city meeting. I know that solar panels are often manufactured by slaves in Xinjiang. Is it appropriate for me to describe you as an advocate for slavery in Xinjiang? Obviously not - that would be a lie.