> Paranoid conservatives have increasingly become certain Google is trying to silence them, citing its firing of engineers who allegedly created hostile work en

> Paranoid conservatives have increasingly become certain Google is trying to silence them, citing its firing of engineers who allegedly created hostile work environments and a largely illusory panic about YouTube censorship. >largely illusory panic The link that is cited here is one talking about a Prager University video on the "1 in 5 women are raped" claim. Prager U is suing Google for 1st amendment violations. The article talks about how it isn't likely to get Google in much legal trouble because they are a private company. However it doesn't make much comment on if the "panic" is "illusory" or not. The examples given seem to indicate Google is actively censoring certain people they don't like. [The Linked Article] > The complaint filed in California federal court includes charts of restricted videos compared to unrestricted videos on "similar topics." For example, Prager's video titled "Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?" is on lockdown, while a Real Time With Bill Maher video about The Hunting Ground; an interview with former Vice President Joe Biden on how to end the campus rape crisis; and Lady Gaga singing about rape all can be seen by YouTube users. > As to the meat of the thing good conservatives are supposed to get angry about: Is Google flagging more right-leaning sites for review than left-leaning ones? Probably. But, uh, that’s also probably because a massive segment of the conservative media, particularly newer digital ventures like the Caller, are completely fine with brazen distortion and aren’t interested in the same journalistic standards as most parts of the mainstream media. Hilarious that the links in this segment are to MotherJones and NewRepublic. Hardly unbiased sources, and none of the links are any kind of support for what is being talked about in this paragraph. I notice that a lot in these kinds of pieces, they think that putting links to other articles will somehow make them seem more well supported. When you actually follow the links they are nonsensical or throw you down a rabbit hole of checking event characterization. This whole article is weird, the author admits that Google isn't doing a good job at their attempt at fact checking, but who cares? The people complaining are people we don't like!