Or perhaps perception of "empirical reality" is shaped by existing biases, causing them to be denied outright, resulting in an echo chamber that disproportionately affected conservative positions.

I like how there is an influx of new accounts that seem to be commenting on this article, but no where else.

Most of the publications that were being "suppressed" are tabloid-esque in manner. The fact that they are all conservative seems to be a problem conservatives may want to fix.

Have you ever breached the subject of intelligence/IQ science, evolutionary biology or being pro-GMO with "progressive" "educated" "liberals" before? Systemic blind spots exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

All the time. I love arguing about GMOs with people whose diets consist of anything that wasn't available in the wild 10,000 years ago. And don't get me started on vaccinations.

How did I leave out vaccines? Anti-vaccine is the pinnical of anti-science rhetoric. Although it seems to be slowing down.

Guess what, conservatives think "liberal news" are contradicted by empirical reality too. Nobody thinks they are in the wrong.

So everybody's right?

Practically nobody is right 100% of the time, which is why you shouldn't put people in charge of censoring information.

Your 'perhaps' assertion contradicts what the curators actually said.