The medium of communication doesn't make speech suddenly exempt from the first amendment - especially when the government is actively questioning if the speech in context is legal because they don't like the search results they see.
But a more important distinction is this: Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals. Television, radio and newspapers are much more limited in scope, in that they are private groups which produce content that I consume. Google, Twitter and Facebook instead provide platforms for individuals to share their own content, which is what makes them part of the "public square", and which is why - combined with their monopoly control of the internet - their politically biased attempts at controlling what we see is censorship and cannot be tolerated.
Google does not have a monopoly. Market dominance with accessible competition != monopoly. Having a consumer preferred or superior product != monopoly.
>Google has control over what content produced by individuals is seen by other individuals
And the television networks didn't? What you're describing is not different at all.
No, television spreads the product of companies, not the thought of individuals.
What's especially insidious about censorship online that forces us to think differently about it is that when users do a Google search, they generally don't expect political bias to influence search results. People are aware of the biases of different media outlets and can tailor their consumption of such media accordingly, but the black box of social media and internet search means the bias is invisible and we can't monitor it the way we can when we read the New York Times or watch Fox News.
Yes these are private companies, but they monopolize what has become the public square and we must not allow the public square to be arbitrarily controlled by private entities.