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.
> 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.