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.
This happens. Frequently.
Replace "Huff post et al" with "Tiananmen Square" and search while inside China.
Specific to the US, the 1st amendment prevents the restriction of speech by government, which in some cases overlaps into private enterprise.
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.
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.
numerous examples when google removes apps from their appstore.
even numerous examples when they are abusing search and prioritise their own products instead of competitors.
same for amazon.
corporate interests are not moral, dont forget that.
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.
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.