Facebook seems to be stumbling down the same page that Twitter did here in terms of attempting to regulate some content, by means that they themselves determines to be un-biased and in the best interests of users... which hasn't quite worked out so well for Twitter.
If everything is fine and unmoderated, there is no bias. If some things are flagged, not allowed, etc, I don't care how much a 3rd party is trusted. It's still humans picking and choosing one piece of content over another, and there are inherent biases involved there.
Facebook makes its money from spam, as do the news.
Because they've lost credibility there's this new huge reach to label things as condoned or not. That's not going to solve the ultimate problem, which is that the information industry has become a platform where the highest spam bidder wins dissemination on the platform, rather than what spam is shared by people.
This is just one more step in the centralization of control of social media. There's still going to be plenty of spam, it just has to pay the gatekeeper (Facebook) or otherwise be on its good side.
If having free speech produces "infinite spam", then that's a byproduct worth the benefits of not being limited on what ideas are ok to say and what ideas are not.
If everything is fine and unmoderated, there is no bias. If some things are flagged, not allowed, etc, I don't care how much a 3rd party is trusted. It's still humans picking and choosing one piece of content over another, and there are inherent biases involved there.