[davismwfl]

It could be easily argued while they are not rewriting the story they selectively choose the facts they present as "fact checked" information. In the recent past both FB and Twitter have linked to "fact checked" articles/sources that represented only the narrative they wanted you to read. If they wanted to show neutral behavior they could have linked to articles that represented both sides of an argument which would keep their independence and educate their audience better since rarely is one side 100% correct.

[iaw]

The "both sides" of an argument thing does not work when one side is intellectually dishonest and bases arguments on misinterpretations and mistruths.

[rayiner]

Democrats base their arguments on some bombshell mistruths. Like trillion dollar mistruths. The idea that America underinvests in schools and social welfare, for example, when we spend more than European countries per person on both metrics.

[jahaja]

What nations spend and what the people actually receive are two different things and you know it, yet you keep repeating this time and time again.

[rayiner]

Democrats argue we need to spend more and pay teachers more. The argument that we need to do a better job making sure the money we spend actually benefits kids, that’s a different argument, and will get you branded a Republican.

[jahaja]

Yes, and it might be very reasonable that some areas of those are underfunded while other are wasteful. The reasons for this discrepancy might very well be policies that are upheld by republicans, like inflated healthcare costs, who knows? You're just providing a generalization. The meager output with the same input suggests that there's too many middle men and I wouldn't just assume that Republicans are more willing to stop the siphoning of taxes into private pockets.

[esarbe]

Does anyone care to explain the downvotes? This seems like a reasonable argument to be made.

[esarbe]

It's so sad that the divisiveness of this topic makes it impossible to be discussed in an friendly and respectful way.

[aksss]

Problem is that both sides see the other as exactly this. I’m sure I can argue the point on behalf of either side selected by a coin toss. In today’s example though we have the side that dominates academia, media, big labor, healthcare, public sector workers, and big tech using that dominance to censor a story harmful to their candidate with very disingenuous reasoning.

[iaw]

Only one side has come up with 'alternative facts' and argued that conclusive science is 'still out'.

I've seen hypocrisy on both sides for sure but the intellectual dishonesty is only coming from one.

[aksss]

I know a dozen people who would agree with you and thirteen who would argue the opposite and cite sources. You might not be as objective as you think here.

[jahaja]

What's even the point of this "one should be more balanced, both sides!" etc etc. From my EU/Nordic perspective the US right-wing are more or less "crazy-right" (I mean just look at the Trump administration?!). I can't see why one should need to be somewhere in-between just because there are two parties.

[rayiner]

The whole Extinction Revolution stuff?

[esarbe]

Na, they are actually based in reality. We're killing our own biological support system. Sad, sorry, and true facts.

[Wolfenstein98k]

Which side?

Let me guess: "The Other One!"

[esarbe]

Which one is the side that is tentatively supportive of the whole QAnon stuff?

[esarbe]

A downvote for pointing out the obvious, I guess? :D