[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.