If person A uses ‘unequal’ as synonymous with ‘It’s my opinion that it’s less likely to be true as mainstream academics say X, it doesn’t account for Y, I view it as sourced from those uneducated folk or those with little experience of the subject, it’s citing people I consider unreliable, etc.’ All of that is fine to my mind, as the definition remains within the realms of their own perceptions, assessments and arguments, and makes ‘unequal’ synonymous with ‘I think it’s wrong/more likely to be wrong'.We usually do not know who people are on social media.
We could imagine an exchange between physicists about the nature of Black Holes. Someone could be making claims that are at variance with what most physicists believe. If the others think that this person is also a physicist, they may give these claims serious consideration, because they know that they will likely come from someone who knows what they are talking about. However, that person could be very ignorant, and just spouting things with no real basis.
I think that the same also applies to politics. I saw someone claiming a while ago that Starmer would be out by the end of the year and the Labour Party would go to the left. That is simply an assertion with no evidence to back it up. If someone with some knowledge of the topic was to say a similar thing, I would want to know more. I would not bother engaging with someone who I did not know who made such a claim.
It seems to me that all points of view are not equal. Some come from knowledge and consideration, others are based on little or no knowledge or thought.
Of course, person B will also have their own set of assessments that arrive at the reverse conclusion (some may be very different and some may even be very similar to person A). The trouble is there’s no way of getting outside of the two parties to make an objective hierarchy where some opinions are less equal than others. In absence of this what we’re left with is: All opinions are equal but are thought not to be considered as equal by the parties involved.
Group A may get their way and create societal laws/conventions to treat group B’s opinions unequally or vice versa, but I don’t believe there can be an objective test for such disagreement. And, as a side note, I personally don’t believe in the utility of it in the context of wider society. I think it can backfire. I also question it ethically. None of this is a consequence of any specific opinion I hold on any specific subject, tbh. Rather, I simply believe it’s better to state your reasons why something is wrong rather than point to some subversive and ethereal notion of ‘unequal opinions’.