it seems to be rather against the very spirit of a system that 1) routes traffic in the manner it does 2) specifies access in the manner it does 3) has a histo

it seems to be rather against the very spirit of a system that 1) routes traffic in the manner it does 2) specifies access in the manner it does 3) has a history and culture as such in short: it's against the internet itself... is the internet biased? I think the issue is rather like a court case: sure, there are 2 litigants, but in the end one is determined to be "correct" and the other loses... if a famous data scientist publishes a research paper and I stand up naked on my desk and shout "peanut butter sandwiches!" at the top of my lungs, the peer review committee has no obligation to include my response in the process surrounding the review of said paper. If a doctor or car mechanic gives a diagnosis in the field of their expertise, their opinion will be given more weight than if I ask a passerby their opinion on my illness or automobile.... i could go on and on making examples where 2 or more "sides" may appear wishing representation and where they don't necessarily warrant/merit it. one has no obligation to represent litigants as holding an equal stature in validity, it's the a-priori presumption of the possibility of such that allows people to initially listen and nod, before one makes them aware of how bat-poo crazy one is, lol