While I celebrate this from them to kill manipulation, this sentence can be applied to their own bias towards conservative people who get banned and progressive don't, even saying worse things or using the service on massive organization to take down accounts. If both parties do harm, they should be take down. But both Twitter and Facebook do enormous efforts to shutdown voices. Including Google and Youtube.
Interesting, what leads you to believe this is the case?
I've heard of this happening; I've also heard of the exact opposite happening, e.g. this post which cites examples of specific people and pieces of content that were banned as well as the specific dates and times and durations of the bans: https://medium.com/@thedididelgado/mark-zuckerberg-hates-bla...
I'm sure it is true that there are conservatives who've been banned and self-proclaimed "progressives" who've done as bad or worse things who haven't. Hopefully you also agree that the examples in that post, of progressives being banned while racists who should have been banned but weren't, probably really did happen.
Due to scale, it wouldn't surprise me that all of those examples could be true without there being any systemic bias on their service. What leads you to believe that such a bias exists?
From what I've read, there's actually some reason to believe the exact opposite bias exists: https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-cens...
Again, I think all those examples are probably true. But I think they could be consistent with a bias in any direction, due to scale.
I bet there are also internal emails calling liberals "snowflakes" and that they shadowban and demonetize liberal voices. Are you telling me you believe that never happens? They've never internally criticized a liberal or banned a liberal video?
If we agree that they both happen, where's the evidence of bias, rather than just tons of mistakes due to scale?