Can you explain to me the difference in reliability of information between the version posted on WaPo and Breitbart?
Whatever else you think of Breitbart, in this case their article actually contains some interesting information not included in the WaPo article, including comments from Gab's lawyer about why he thinks the case has merit.
The WaPo article is clearly slanted towards Google and against Gab, and the Breitbart article is the reverse. If you're interested in a balanced view you should probably read both.
Those posts are easy to spot and even easier to dismiss. I'm asking about the article specifically - is there something in it that Breitbart is misrepresenting?
For example, the New York Times featured a piece [0] stating President Trump will "erase from the annals of life on earth" several species of animals, including the Hawaiian Honeycreeper, the Joshua Tree, the Horseshoe Crab, and more. Why? Because President Trump exited a 1 year old environmental accord.
Still other mainstream outlets reported, "Donald Trump will have his own version of Hitler's Reichstag fire to expand his power and take full control of the government."[1]
That is reporting on political drama in misleading ways.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-cant-s...
[1]: http://blog.judahgabriel.com/2017/06/the-sky-is-falling-docu...
Breitbart's article is 90% quotes of Gab's press release and statements from their management. Google's pov is completely absent. Instead, they add some speculation regarding Apple in the last paragraph, but it only serves to make a point, not to convey any information.
There are many smaller problems with Breitbart's writing: "suddenly suspended" doesn't make sense, because you can't be "gradually suspended". The scare quotes around hate speech make a cheap political point, the headline adopts Gab's self-aggrandising description as a "free speech social network" etc.