It is for the first ad mentioned in the story he posted.
Yes, I know. But your post doesn't mention that or read like "Slow is picking and choosing," it reads "The thing Slow chose to complain about is actually against him. Haha. What an idiot." That's the point. It looks like you skimmed and conflated the two, and are now trying to cover your tracks.
But nice cherry y'all picked there. It seems he's ONLY enraged by the SECOND ad in the story being banned over how women are portrayed, but NOT the ad banned for making men look stupid.
The thing is that the "men aren't good at caring for babies" trope is something that could trigger either MRA types ("It's anti-male!") or social justice types ("It's a gender stereotype! Subverting traditional roles so that the father is the one staying at home and caring for the children is progress!") and so the blame on that one feels pretty ambiguous. If anything, I'd lean towards the later if only because the mechanism seems to better fit their M.O. (e.g. cancel culture).
The car ad isn't ambiguous at all though. The fault is obviously on the shoulders of deranged people on the left.
But even that being the case, it would be nice if we could all agree that censorship is bad. It's OK to point out where the right has also erred -- after all, if I had to guess I'd assume that the bureaucrats originally received their mandate via right wing politicians looking to clamp down on "satanic" content, or some such. If so, a good example on why the ends don't justify the means -- but the "I'm rubber and you're glue" + "Let's all make fun of the messenger" just comes across as deflection. And smug. If instead you said something like: "Yes, this is bad and I condemn it. Do you also condemn x?" then who knows, you might find some common ground.