This is what-about-ism, not a substantive objection. One need not point out every obstacle to open debate in order to identify one important obstacle to open debate.
It's not what–about–ism because they're not neutral agents. I'm not saying "they say they want intellectual curiosity, but what about unpaid interns" — I'm saying "they say they want intellectual curiosity, but they are the ones actively preventing that from happening".
