The argument conservatives provide is the idea that they're overly censored on platforms; how permissively they're spoken of (hatefully or otherwise) is unrelated. If anything, it's in alignment to their ideology, not against it.

But let's say what you're claiming is true for a moment. Political ideology shouldn't have been included with race, gender, and religion anyway; it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation, as it's 100% a choice, where as disability, race, gender, and religion are not.

I'd dispute religion not being a choice and that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate as you suggest, but, regardless, this seems like semantic cartwheels to avoid the clear, evidenced point that bias is present.

Whether you or I approve of or align with that bias is irrelevant.

No it’s not irrelevant; bias is good when it hinders horrible things and supports great things.

This is an argument on the merits of specific biases, not an argument that all biases are bad; no person or group operates with the intention of removing all bias, even if they claim to want that.

But as we all operate with bias, what appears to us to be good or bad is necessarily informed by it and makes subjective claims about which political biases are for the common good opinion only.

That's why we have democratic systems, so the mass of those opinions, informed by those personal biases override (in theory, if not always in practice) the opinions of a select few.

That is also why it is important to flush out as much as possible the undemocratic representation of ideological bias (left, right, whatever) in a tool as powerful as ChatGPT, when it has been clearly shown to be present.