IMO, everyone comes into this discussion with some sort of anchoring, and build up from that. IMO, it's way to cumbersome to think in terms of right, left and

IMO, everyone comes into this discussion with some sort of anchoring, and build up from that. IMO, it's way to cumbersome to think in terms of right, left and bias. What's the observable difference between a world where "right wing bias" exists and one where "right wing posts are just more compelling." Bias is a strong word, but if we're using it, then I think it's near universal. Media is never neutral. Social software is never neutral. Software design always affects content on a social media. The business model of the media (eg cable news, subscriptions newspaper, free dailies) very obviously dictates content. Liberalism has a history of falling into a pattern. Theory about fair/good systems, and the outcome they'll produce. If they don't produce the desired outcome, we fall into a mess. The pattern applies to economics, social stuff, domestic & international politics. IE, start with a belief that liberal democracy (formulations vary) is the only system that's fair, functional and successful. Post-soviet russia implements free market capitalism, emphasising contracts, property rights and such. It quickly develops an oligarchy. That's attributed to "not doing capitalism right" or the moral failings of Russian culture. Myanmar's despotic press monopoly opens up to FB. This a more free and open media diet. Rumours about minorities quickly spread, evolve into violence and genocide. Again, we have a hard time believing that freedom is a culprit. It's unfree media that causes genocide. Free media is the antidote. So, the only explanation is FB "bias" or some other corruption. We start with a notion of fair systems and what their outcome will be. When reality disagree, we tend to double down. There are examples in every decade for centuries. Shortly after Laissez Faire economic theories were adopted in the UK, a famine occured in Ireland. The government response was doubling down. A famine could only mean that markets were not free enough. Population numbers have still not recovered 180 years later.