Yep! But irrespective of whether the story was real/fake, the GP comment said that people "believe" that `Google have a guy in a room somewhere turning the "con

Yep! But irrespective of whether the story was real/fake, the GP comment said that people "believe" that `Google have a guy in a room somewhere turning the "conservative search results" lever down a notch during elections`. Now if you truly want to address this concern of the people, the question obviously would be if it was the algorithm that blocked the article or was it "a guy in a room"? I don't see what is the difficulty in admitting that it was "a guy in a room" because our values/ideology does not align with ideology of New York Post. When you start to say that it was the algorithm that did it, and that there was zero human interference, without any proof to back up those assertions, then it is much the same as saying that it was a "popup" that triggered when one is caught watching porn. "I did not do it, it was the machine." Then it becomes even more important to open source the algorithm so everyone can see what is happening internally. It at least puts some doubts to rest. It is better than saying "believe me it was the algorithm not me".