It’s an interesting question, but I don’t think they are the same thing. Neutrality is exactly that, neutrality. Once the full extent of facts are known, you’re in a better place to make an informed statement. Rittenhouse is a good example, understanding the nuances of law outside of the ‘armed white teen shoots three innocent men’ narrative was important here. You don’t have to jump to rittenhouse’s defence nor condemn him entirely - and people did both. That’s not a tacit endorsement of Rittenhouse’s actions. It’s the ‘wait and see’ principle in action. Confusing absence of opinion with agreement or disagreement with the premise presented is a problematic direction to push discourse.