I agree. Suggesting two tiers suggests a feeling of being disadvantaged.
If I'm honest, I am baffled by the persecution complex that has been developing amongst the right wing over the years about the justice system, science, the media, online information sources, and more. For example, a check of the US' Supreme Court make up shows 6 conservatives and 3 "liberals," if I understand correctly, and it has been quite similar for ~60 years!
Countries also have different understandings of what is considered left wing and right wing. It would be hard to find many outside the US who consider the Democrats as very left wing (perhaps centrist?), and certainly not "far left."
In general, countries also tend toward inertia and supporting the status quo, which means there is often a trend towards most systems and news media having a general, conservative leaning. Things we take for granted now would have been a big "shake up" at an early time in history (e.g. reduction in working week days/hours, ending slavery, women's right to vote, civil rights, etc.). That said, it is not always one particular party for positive changes and the same other one against.
I would defend rights to freedom of speech, although privately-run forums also have a right to regulate themselves as they see fit.
Following on from what chevy says, if someone feels unwelcome on a particular site, I suppose there is a choice to make: leave to find a site that fits more closely with one's own beliefs to minimize the daily hassle (but be in danger of living in an echo chamber), or else stay engaged if there is a genuine interest in two-way discussion and furthering of the debate... but this means also being open to changing our own minds, not only changing the other person's mind.
I also think, however, there is A LOT of pure disinformation out there, which needs to be countered with facts when we see it.
