Over the years I have seen Medium go from an all-inclusive content platform to solely but surely becoming a platform for liberals to push their leftish everything is normal agenda and decry anything that doesn't align with their world viewpoint. Case-in-point was an article I came across today titled No, Big Tech Isn't Silencing Conservatism.
The byline of the story reads, "Conservative perspectives abound on Google — it just depends on how you search" The basis of the article is summed up in this paragraph extracted from the above-linked article:
most of us don’t understand how Google works. We fail to realize the importance of keywords and that what we type into Google shapes the kinds of results we will receive.
This is the wrong way of looking at it. A lot of people don't get their news by "Googling it", they get their news from news sites, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other sources. The problem with news sites is they're biased, a lot of people get their news from social media because there is an overload of conflicting reports out there to the point people don't know what is real and what isn't.
In the case of Donald Trump, media coverage is largely negative. The Washington Times reported back in March 2018 that the Media Research Study concluded that news coverage amongst the big three broadcast networks from 91% negative.
Liberals will argue, "well, everything Trump does is bad and he's a criminal, collusion, Russia, etc" to justify the negative coverage, but this level of negativity is unprecedented. Not even warmonger George Bush who started the Iraq war was subject to this level of negativity, even after it was admitted the war was a mistake.
The article itself tries arguing a point using a bunch of clever words and trickery, but ultimately it fails to address anything in an honest way. Fortunately, the responses to the article some people were not shy of calling the author out, once such author was Dimitri Smirnov who posted:
The complaint from conservatives doesn’t boil down to how to query a search engine. But whether companies purposely choose to enforce rules on their sites selectively, whether their employees give larger leniency to people who violate rules due to own political bias, whether sites aggregate sources in such way that display results that are more in line with where they believe the middle ground should be - that is naturally just slightly to the right of far left.
If you go to Twitter, as an example, you will quickly notice the trend of vile things said about white people get punished far less than those said about minorities. Even though TOS clearly state racism of any kind is not allowed. That’s maybe because many on the left want to subscribe to arbitrary ideology that racism against white people is not possible.
As Dimitri rightfully points out, the censorship and silencing of conservative voices have nothing to do with Google, it's platforms who are prioritising certain perspectives they deem to be neutral (or just anti-right). Banning a particular site or group but not banning groups known to perpetrate violence like ANTIFA, that's silencing.
Every time Twitter chooses to allow a left-leaning activist to make antagonising remarks and lets them get away with it, that's taking a side. The number of threats I have seen against Donald Trump on Twitter go unpunished, you would be surprised. Seemingly there is no consequence if you threaten the president under the guise of leftism, but post a conspiracy theory and you get banned.
Why are big tech companies being called to the Senate floor to testify? Because there is currently a widespread leftish agenda to silence viewpoints people disagree with under the guise of Russian collusion and hate speech.
All of this is taking us down the path of Chinese style censorship and yes, it is coming.