So when you ask me to justify my arguments, I'll provide specific links so you can see where I'm coming from, and when I ask you to justify your arguments, you'll say JFGI. And you call my arguments lazy?

I've never actually seen it disproved, would you care to expand on that?

Well you didn't exactly make a content-heavy post for me to work with, so I'm chalking it up to both of us being assholes and leaving it there.

I'm actually more than happy to do so, though I'll hope you understand that I'm pulling from several years of information and am subject to all the same biases as any other human being. I'll provide some links to the handful of sources I have at hand, but some of this is drawn from articles and analyses I don't have…

I called it the way I read the tone of your comment, and I'm sorry if I got it wrong.

1. Eeeeehhhhn I'm a little ambivalent. According to people interviewed for the articles cited in the first place, Facebook hired actual degreed journalists to grind the news up into palatable chunks for the news feed. If Facebook isn't trying to be a news platform, they're still definitely trying to be a source, to…

You're welcome, brodacious, good talk.

Oh don't worry, I don't think you're harassing me.

Well it was part of a longer response. I'm pretty comfortable with how it played out.

Are you asking me what motivation a liberal organization would have to suppress conservatively biased news/opinion pieces? I'm happy to get into why I think this particular story has a leg to stand on, even while acknowledging that it could be false or overblown. But frankly, you don't seem very interested in those…

It's clear and direct, but it's not asking.

Don't forget the part where I implied that Inward Jim was hitting on me.

Will do, good buddy. Message received, loud and clear!

I'm signing off on it conditionally: iff the article is accurate and there aren't further complicating factors (for example, evidence that Facebook has a rigorous set of criteria to prevent this, or to ensure that a similar standard is applied to leftist news/opinions), then this is my position.

It definitely ties in with my discomfort about what entities are becoming the dominant news platforms, and how that translates to the effective transmission of important information.

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me, I just think this person is being kind of a douche about it.

Hey, have a groovy day!

Go with god, friend-o!

You're forgiven, don't let it weigh you down homey.

I was hurt pretty deeply when you called it "Absolute nonsense" when anyone can see that it's only mostly nonsense to think that a corporation with the interest and ability to control our access to information might actually do so.