> But if the algorithm responds equally well to highly engaging posts from team A and team B, then ultimately the algorithm is fair, there's a level playing fie

> But if the algorithm responds equally well to highly engaging posts from team A and team B, then ultimately the algorithm is fair, there's a level playing field That doesn't work well for topics where one team, A say, is free to just make up stuff and the other team, B, is constrained by trying to stick to verifiable facts. It gives A a massive advantage. First, it often takes time for B to develop a response to something new from A and by the time B's response comes out A has added several more posts. Even if B's post completely refutes that first A post, people will see that it hasn't addressed the additional A material and might think that means that additional material is fine. Second, it is easier, cheaper, and faster to generate A material than to generate B material, so A can make it so there is always plenty of un-refuted A material. They can also tweak any A material that B has refuted and claim that it was just a minor issue and they fixed it. The result is that readers see a lot more A than B material. Some might figure out from the B material that the people pushing A are not being truthful, but remember there are another dozen or more topics showing up in their feed each with its own A and B. Most people aren't going to be able to successfully figure out which is being truthful in all of those topics, and so we end up with a lot of people getting misled and scammed.