Neutrality doesn’t exist on social media. It is down to who pays the most to speak the loudest.
In Britain I have to pay a licence fee to a media corporation that goes against my political views on a regular basis. If I don’t pay and I continue to watch television, I can be arrested. This corporation is meant to be unbiased in its reporting yet picked the losing side of both elections, was paid a significant sum by the European Union, and features political sway towards all things liberal. If one brand of liberal is not winning it will switch to champion another.
I think that anybody who takes part in ‘free’ platforms such as Facebook and Twitter must expect to ‘pay’ in their attention through ‘messages from our dodgy sponsor’.
As an observation, in America specifically, your elections are binary. The independent candidates don’t even get a remote look in. There is no third party to negotiate which is bizarre in a land of such choice.
The filter bubble is something I completely agree with. It’s why you have to consider alternatives but even those alternatives can be biased.
What Facebook can do, they won’t do, because what’s in it for them? With the system as it is now Facebook can win from both sides of the argument whilst keeping everybody happy in their bubble. Why change the status quo and lose advertising money?
BTW: It’s all about money.