I expect it would be dramatically easier to detect hyper-partisan articles than to distinguish what…
David Piepgrass

> No, I don’t think that’s a reasonable use of the word “hyper”.

Now we know what you think. I did not give my opinion. My claim is that’s what tens of millions of people think. This is not controversial. Just look at the polls on media bias.

You imply that what these people think does not matter and can be safely ignored since their idea of “hyper” is un-“reasonable.” We need a wise (robot) gatekeeper.

It comes down to this. Can you provide an objective definition of the point at which a piece crosses the line from “partisan” (allowed to see) to “hyper-partisan” (blocked)?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.