I'd counter that in many cases it doesn't even try to be fair. It privileges the ability to craft an argument over bare facts, which immediately privileges thos

I'd counter that in many cases it doesn't even try to be fair. It privileges the ability to craft an argument over bare facts, which immediately privileges those who can afford professional representation. At the core of the fear of a surveillance state isn't simply the loss of privacy (which in and of itself could be worth the accuracy it would bring to judicial proceedings), but the fact that it would just bolster the ability of skilled narrative-builders to pull the most advantageous facts out of context and twist them to their whims.