Seems this might be a case of equal opportunity vs equal results. Conservatives tend to win on the internet when given an equal opportunity, because we have better arguments, better evidence, and we win fair debates.
So the Left has complained bitterly about this--them being used to the good old days when Left leaning media was the only game in town. So on their (very twisted) view the algorithms must change to make the results even, which of course means suppressing the natural tendencies for conservative dominance in the free market of ideas.
I wanted to post that snippet myself - then saw that you already had, AndyTheBear.
My response to the report:
Only if you call misquoting, quoting out of context, lampooning, mocking, and ridiculing conservatives "giving them greater reach."
Regards,
Something like that. They are saying that because Trump used social media more and had more followers that "social media" wasn't biased against conservatives, but rather magnified their influence. But the criticism of "social media" doesn't relate to the potential of the medium but the actions and attitudes of the people who run and control it.
The NYU study criticized Facebook and Twitter's censorship of the Hunter Biden story as "decisions wrapped in mystifying processes."
Right, that's one way to find no bias: to simply call it the result of "mystifying processes."