> Yeah, for sure. Call it freedom of information, add a little bit of common sense to it, and your argument renders itself completely invalid.

No it doesn't. Obviously you aren't grasping the concept of free speech (and its limits).

> Google demonstrates that it doesn't follow a revenue driven agenda with these actions. It involves itself in selecting political views that it deems acceptable to influence the opinions of a world wide audience.

As is its legal right to do so.

> It is large enough to take on a quasi governmental role. If it was just acting as a neutral platform, I would buy your argument, but it obviously doesn't.

"Quasi government" is a meaningless word and doesn't really help your argument. Why would it have to act as a neutral platform?