[qersist3nce]

> Maybe I'm out of the loop here, where did the Guardian try to undermine the free flow of information?

"given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism"

Disturbing to who? far-right compared to what point of reference? Which theories are conspiracy and which are legit? What is the definition of racism , who are racist people and why is it a bad thing?

Discussion about any of the above points happen in a "free" environment in which all parties can express their views.

[ziddoap]

That is them stating their opinion.

That is not them "undermining the free flow of information".

>Discussion about any of the above points happen in a "free" environment in which all parties can express their views.

You are free to discuss the article on twitter, or, as you are already doing, here. The Guardian isn't stopping you.

[qersist3nce]

Well from their post alone it seems they would impose their particular world-view in their comment section. Isn't Guardian a "news" outlet, by which being "neutral" and "accommodating to a plurality of ideas" is a inherent virtue?

Also it appears their editorial board and "community" is not able to defend their political stances on a free playground.

>The Guardian isn't stopping you

I think they would have, if there was a technical way to do so. And it's not just about Guardian at this point.

[defrost]

You haven't made any kind of case that The Guardian is "undermining the free flow of information"

> it seems they would impose

This is your opinion, freely expressed. It's neither evidence nor was it undermined by The Guardian.

> Isn't Guardian a "news" outlet

"strawman framing" with "a side of airquotes".

Even so, can you point to any regulations in the UK or US that define what a "news" outlet is and how they are even required to have a comment section?

> which being "neutral" and "accommodating to a plurality of ideas" is a inherent virtue?

Core news reporting is about "just the facts", editorial stances are another thing that good organisations have and identify when in play - there is no requirement to be neutral about, say, Hitlers poltics (as evidenced by The Daily Mail at the time).

> I think they would have,

Again that's literally just your opinion.

[qersist3nce]

>You haven't made any kind of case that The Guardian is "undermining the free flow of information"

I view it as an attempt by a group of left-leaning media/news outlets hoping to de-crown X out of its popularity as a neutral forum for expressing political views.

Yes, these are my opinions or ... "comment replies". People can post their comments or fact-checks, the things Guardian people don't like to engage with.

[defrost]

Some might hold a popular delusion that X is a neutral forum for expressing political views.

X is not a neutral forum.

[ywvcbk]

Except it can’t happen in that environment. Twitter always was and is inherently unsuitable for any semi-productive discussion due its format.

However that is besides the point any discussion in such “free” environment will be drowned by noise and bigotry (from both sides). Pretending otherwise is silly.