It provides evidence that search engine rankings influence opinion, which I do not doubt. From a business perspective SEO exists for this very reason.
It also provides evidence that Google as a company likely supports Hillary to at least some degree. Of this I also have no doubt.
But it uses FUD to say you should connect the dots and state that Google is actively manipulating rankings to assist a particular candidate. Of this, they provide no evidence other than "they could".
It's that last bit I take issue with. There's no analysis to support this notion.
If they did such an analysis I'd be very impressed as it would very much help discuss the deeper issues of Google's power over opinion. Essentially, Google is the portal to information for most people. They are a private company operating for profit that uses an algorithm that must be secret for it to work. I understand the unease with that situation and enjoy reading discussions about it.
However, their choice to essentially accuse Google of altering their algorithm to support Hillary is unsupported at this time. By adding it in it hurts their broader argument that gatekeepers of information should be subject to increased scrutiny and potentially to new regulations to ensure their neutrality.
