Also it appears their editorial board and "community" is not able to defend their political stances on a free playground.
>The Guardian isn't stopping you
I think they would have, if there was a technical way to do so. And it's not just about Guardian at this point.
> it seems they would impose
This is your opinion, freely expressed. It's neither evidence nor was it undermined by The Guardian.
> Isn't Guardian a "news" outlet
"strawman framing" with "a side of airquotes".
Even so, can you point to any regulations in the UK or US that define what a "news" outlet is and how they are even required to have a comment section?
> which being "neutral" and "accommodating to a plurality of ideas" is a inherent virtue?
Core news reporting is about "just the facts", editorial stances are another thing that good organisations have and identify when in play - there is no requirement to be neutral about, say, Hitlers poltics (as evidenced by The Daily Mail at the time).
> I think they would have,
Again that's literally just your opinion.
I view it as an attempt by a group of left-leaning media/news outlets hoping to de-crown X out of its popularity as a neutral forum for expressing political views.
Yes, these are my opinions or ... "comment replies". People can post their comments or fact-checks, the things Guardian people don't like to engage with.
That is not them "undermining the free flow of information".
>Discussion about any of the above points happen in a "free" environment in which all parties can express their views.
You are free to discuss the article on twitter, or, as you are already doing, here. The Guardian isn't stopping you.