If I own Google and refuse to index and show in search results anything from Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post is that okay? It is not! Technically, Google is a private entity and can do whatever it wants.
Once a company becomes too big like Twitter, Google, Facebook, they have a moral obligation to stay neutral.
Interesting how opinions expressing a viewpoint that differs from the hive mind gets down-voted.
I would argue that Google has an obligation to be transparent, they do not have an obligation to be neutral. As you state, they are a private entity and can do whatever they want.
If news providers and other knowledge providers are allowed to curate what data they present then I don't think it's reasonable to demand that Google be held to a higher standard. Further, literally nothing is stopping you from creating your own knowledge aggregator if you feel that Google is doing a bad job of displaying pertinent data.
I'm a big proponent of free speech, and have read a bit on the arguments against Big Tech censorship. One of the arguments against Google being able to selectively censor political content, despite being a private company, is that they could be classified as an essential service. I'm obviously getting information from sources opposed to Google's censorship, so I don't know if the wider legal community agrees with that view, but it's worth considering.
Another argument is that they have legal protections as content providers. However, the same protections don't apply to content publishers. If their censorship places them in the publisher category, they could open themselves to lawsuits. YouTube is an example that usually comes up. If a user uploads an illegal video, YouTube has protections against lawsuits. As a publisher, they would have more liability for the content they host.
Violating SEO rules is bad and these sites should be removed that can be understood.
Is it good for the democracy if Google removes all results from new sites it doesn't agree with? It should remain neutral as much as possible and not tamper with its search results.
> They are just using Trump's tweet to promote their own point of view.
Correction: they're using their own service to promote their own point of view.
I honestly think there are real issues with the public means of communication being privately owned by a smallish number of entities, but it does free expression no good to make the fight about letting lies, disinformation, and other forms of untruth to flow unimpeded.
Once a company becomes too big like Twitter, Google, Facebook, they have a moral obligation to stay neutral.
Interesting how opinions expressing a viewpoint that differs from the hive mind gets down-voted.