But in the name of free speech Google allows on YouTube and foots the bill. What could be more unbias?
Although it may be bugs and not bias : https://www.poynter.org/news/blame-bugs-not-partisanship-goo...
Google continuing to host Alex Jones may not be be 'in the name of free speech', they may not want people to go to other platforms to get their content. They can lead users to other videos from any video ( using the side bar ) and make money from those videos which does contain advertisements
Google does not have to play the cost for more left leaning content like they have to do with alt right content.
Current dominance != future dominance. Read the concept behind innovators dilemma
Also youtube has stiff competition from Facebook : https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/mashable.com/2017/12/05/how-f...
The problem for a competitor is YT was built during a period of time it was possible, barely, to do this. I say barely as in Google had a ton of engineering challenges.
Not sure if technical but serving over 1.6 billion hours of video a day is really hard.
But now with all the content in one place it is impossible to compete.
Wife and me talking about Marsha getting hit with a football. Just turn around and ask the Google Home to play it and it plays a video of the scene. Same with Mary laughing at clowns funeral.
I hear this accusation a lot, but I haven't heard about (or perhaps I just forgot) specific examples.
Perhaps there's a comprehensive rundown of what's being alleged, somewhere on the web?
Alternately, can someone clue me in with examples?