It's not "being factual". It's you forcing me to accept your definition of "factual". That's the crux of the question - it's no longer my choice, the gatekeeper chooses for me what is "fact" and what is not, and I have no option of applying my own intellect and make my own choice - the choice is made for me, the conclusions are prepared in advance for me and the information is pre-filtered and pre-arranged to push me into accepting whatever vision of the world the gatekeeper privileges. I don't have an option to even know there exists something outside of gatekeeper's filter, let alone build my own filter according to my own preferences.

That's why the quotes are there - because it's literally what the quotes are for, to emphasize it's not my definition and not may decision - it's gatekeeper's, and I have no control and no input on it. If you think eating up pre-filtered and pre-digested information is "intellectualism", you definition of it is very different than mine.

> you're making out that Facebook is benign or not?

That's what using pre-digested information does for you - you become unable to parse things that aren't pre-digested. I will help you to make it clear - Facebook is evil, but the major point is not whether it's evil or not, but the role of information gatekeeper that it performs. Applied to a browser platform, this approach is dangerous and unacceptable to anybody who values their own intellect and is not scared of actually using it once in a while instead of outsourcing this function to a gatekeeper body.

> It's you forcing me to accept your definition of "factual"

Do you have a link to this definition that doesn't match your own? I'd be curious to see varying definitions of "factual"; it might make this issue easier to discuss.

> it's no longer my choice, the gatekeeper chooses for me what is "fact" and what is not, and I have no option of applying my own intellect and make my own choice - the choice is made for me, the conclusions are prepared in advance for me and the information is pre-filtered and pre-arranged to push me into accepting whatever vision of the world the gatekeeper privileges

You use two words here: "pre-filtered" and "pre-arranged"

Pre-filtering is not what's been proposed in the article. We've already covered that above, so lets not reiterate... any implied pre-filtering here is imagined.

Pre-arrangement is the world we live in and the very definition of the modern internet. What's been proposed is to introduce an improvement to how things are pre-arranged. I'd love to live in your utopia where we have the time to read everything in Google's index one-by-one and select which ones we value individually, but here in the real world, things are pre-arranged. This is about trying to find the best way to ensure that that pre-arrangement is not horribly skewed and corrupt.

> I'd be curious to see varying definitions of "factual"

Go to any "fact checking" site, they regularly "fact check" opinions and predictions about the future, which can't be "factual". Ask any of the current gatekeepers, which regularly block people expressing controversial opinions (about things like how to handle the beer bug or riots or any other current issue) for "misinformation" - completely ignoring the idea that opinions and facts are different things. The definition of "fact" in "fact checking" is basically "fact is something you don't get deplatformed for saying", more or less. Of course there's no better definition - why would they commit to any definition if "fact is what we say it is" works so well?

> Pre-filtering is not what's been proposed in the article

It is. That's what "amplifying factual voices" is - that is the only thing it could be - a filter. It doesn't have to be 100% block - but to be of any efficiency, it has to privilege one viewpoint and suppress another, and the choice will be made by the gatekeeper. It's not imagination - it's a basic requirement without which any mechanism like that would be useless. It has to make privileged opinion easy to reach, and excluded opinion hard to reach, otherwise there's no amplification.

> What's been proposed is to introduce an improvement to how things are pre-arranged

"Improvement" is a tricky word. When you define what is better for me, and "improve" things according to your definition, what happens if I disagree about what is better for me? Then your "improvements" are actually obstacles for me. But what if you're so sure you know what is better for me that you are determined to force it on me regardless of my opinion? That makes any such "improver" my enemy - they may think they are helping, but they are not, they are hurting.

> This is about trying to find the best way

When the "best way" is determined unilaterally by the oligarchy of the gatekeepers, it's usually the way that is best for them, not for me. I didn't ask for their help, and yet they are determined to force their "best way" onto me, whether I want it or not, whether I consider it best or not. This is a very common pattern that is repeated in human history again and again. Being on the receiving end of it is never fun, and rarely improves anything for the people being "helped" against their will.