I'll quote #peoplewindow's reply, broadly agreeing with my comment:
>The Guardian has been pushing the line that non-Guardian news sources are 'dangerous for democracy' for a long time now. Other similar publications like the NYT have the same viewpoint.
Check out the Guardian’s history and structure:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. Pretty much the opposite of Facebook.
That statement is nonsense.
Of course The Guardian can't possible be objective w.r.t. Facebook.
Facebook and The Guardian are competitors in the market for online advertising.
edit: double-down
Technically, no. Though the Guardian is good and thorough at what it does, it is explicitly established to advance a liberal viewpoint, rather than be purely "objective". See their own about page for the Scott Trust, which is the non-profit that is responsible for publishing and governing The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-...
The current editor, Katharine Viner, has also been fairly explicit about this in the past (notably in live chats when in charge of the then-new Australian edition).
Most UK news outlets wear their political stance on their sleeve. One of the common ways to get an objective view is to read both The Guardian (left) and The Telegraph (right), and from that triangulate what in the story is a matter of political perspective.
In terms of this topic, the power of tech, Katharine Viner posted a "long read" in 2016 that it's unlikely they'll deviate from in terms of "The Guardian view on..." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology...
From an organisational perspective, you can also read a bit "between the lines" from their financial situation -- growing readership but losing money. Which puts them at an awkward cross-roads where their mission to promote liberal values is best served by remaining free, but it that places their future in jeopardy.
TL;DR: though The Guardian is good, don't mistake "independent" for "neutral"; it has a well-established political view.
+1
That's (part of) what I'm trying to say.
The other part is that, though I'm not all a fan of Facebook, The Guardian (as a competitor) clearly has a self-interested agenda with these anti-Facebook articles.
A few years ago, they used to run a lot of snide, sneering articles about "bloggers".
Now that it turns out that blogs have modulo-zero impact on their bottom line, their focus has turned to Facebook et al.