[dlo]

> even if one source is factual and the Daily Stormer is…

I think it's disingenuous to use the Daily Stormer here as an example. I have definitely come across publications on the left that play loose with the facts or have unlikely explanations for directly observable facts.

It would be more fair to use something like PragerU:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45247302

[bertil]

Oh, I certainly don’t think it’s a black & white situation. I was just taking the point of view of someone who needs to make a decision from a situation where it’s unbalanced. Actually, pretty much every product Facebook has launched had a well-known unbalanced impact: “get out the vote” efforts get more young people out and they vote more to the left; detailing right to vote drives a subset of potential voters (younger, recent citizens) which isn’t balanced either; same for informing about candidates’ Page, or their program. I suspect that getting a Hans-Rosling/Steven-Pinker-like effort to counter-act spurious arguments with actual statistics would also not be neutral. All are on principle laudable efforts; all don’t have a neutral impact on the vote.

I am able to name a right-wing rag because that one is in the press; in general, I stay away from the nastier stuff. As I mentioned in the first paragraph: I care about the smartest of the people who disagree with me and contextualised, nuanced, balanced information. Neither PragerU, the Daily Stormer or other come close to that.