As a "minority" I perhaps disagree with a lot of what this person has written but my reaction to it will be to counter his arguments with a better one rather than go on to silence him.
--
I have already written about this somewhat during the past elections.
https://medium.com/@oothenigerian/trump-v-clinton-silicon-va...
There was an HN thread a week ago [0] wherein Google indicated they were using new metrics to identify and remove "terror content". The metrics include input from a variety of groups. One of the top HN comments said, "Those groups have very specific agendas. They shouldn't be allowed to block articles which disagree with their agenda." [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903370 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14904016
My main beef with Google on news is that they're terrible at provenance. I want to see the original source, not the pundit echo chamber. But the pundits probably generate more ad clicks.
I'm pretty sure that gmail's superior spam filter was one of its big initial selling points?