I’m not arguing whether the bias should or shouldn’t exist. I’m arguing that it does exist, which you seem to be refuting for some reason. And I’m certainly goi

I’m not arguing whether the bias should or shouldn’t exist. I’m arguing that it does exist, which you seem to be refuting for some reason. And I’m certainly going to argue that if platforms try to claim neutrality, they better show evidence of it, or else stop claiming to be neutral. Are you okay with Facebook banning links in private messages? Why can’t I link to JoeBiden.info, a clearly marked parody website full of factual information, in a private message to a friend? What possible reason could there be for this, other than bias? Are you okay with Twitter editorializing the president’s tweets, but not doing the same for those of Adam Schiff or Joe Biden? Both of them have promoted baseless conspiracy theories on Twitter, like suggesting Trump is a Russian agent. Yet they’ve never been “fact checked.” Are you okay with the idea that the person in charge of the fact checking initiative at Twitter has a history of publicly calling Trump a “Nazi” and a “racist tangerine?” Does this seem like an arrangement that will result in anything but biased “fact checks?” I’m having a hard time seeing how this is good for critical thought, as you seem to be suggesting. Telling people what to think is not the basis upon which critical thought develops. If anything, such editorializing will only further polarize people and increase their emotional attachment to pre-existing beliefs.