From HN comments:

[A] The cool thing about the current generation of AI tools is how easy it is to uncover bias or an agenda in an article like this. // paste the verge article text into your favorite AI tool and ask for an analysis. // Make sure to ask it to read the source Gallup data that this article leans on and compare the conclusions drawn.

[B] The cool thing about critical reasoning is how easy it is to uncover bias or agenda in an article like this. // I suspect that as you rely more on a robot for this your own skills will atrophy.

See, this is why I hate HN: it's a mix of dumb shitlets (like [A]) and people forced to act passive aggressively (like [B]).

Here, in the Threadiverse, I can say: there's no "cover". The author is transparent on their views, as they should be. And you don't need to throw the text into a bot to notice those views, unless you lack basic reading comprehension. Like [A] does. And this is bloody obvious. I'm stating the obvious.

But you can't do it in HN. There, if someone vomits dumb shit, you're supposed to play along. The solution? Do it like [B]. [B] is implying [A] lacks critical thinking, but without stating it outright. Because stating the obvious would lead to some gaslighting moderator removing your comment, under the assumption = lie = bullshit "it must be an ignorant towards our guidelines!", while feigning to not understand why you'd be rude towards a user like [A] on first place, who's shitting on an online community allegedly created to gather people from a niche motivated by intellectual curiosity.

Eventually [A] backpedals, but by their answer it's obvious they didn't even notice the jab.

Relevant reminder there's no such thing as impartiality. The most you can do is to be transparent with your partiality, like the author of this article does.