This article is biased, cherry-picked nonsense. Is anyone actually looking at the results of his example queries and evaluating the quality themselves before responding?
To go with your example: the first three results a Google search returns for me on ‘Putin Invasion Speech’ are two NY Times articles analyzing the speech, and then a full translated transcript from Bloomberg. It’s hardly hidden.
On the author’s own example, “Why did Russia invade Ukraine? 2022”, the first article is from the BBC and tries to lay out the full historical context - and mentions Putin’s speech.
The rest are from mainstream news sources of various descriptions, again laying out historical context.
The author may not _like_ that these are trusted, mainstream, popular sources - but that’s what Google has _always_ strived to return. Pagerank was never an ‘unbiased’ thing that searched solely for page content - and, wow, can you imagine the toxic SEO nightmare we’d be in if it was…
Because that's not what I'm searching for. Even if we all agree all the Russian sites are propaganda, I still want to be able to search through it. It's a political decision by Google to filter out these results. It's not algorithmic because no matter how precise your search query is, you will never get results from certain forbidden domains. Google just directly removed rt.com from results recently, so even if you search for "rt.com" you will not see it. I'm sure they have similar filtering based on certain keywords.
Did you try this out?
I specifically didn't call out the complaint about missing results when searching for direct quotes from an article (event thought they are also blatant misinformation), because that indeed is an issue. If I search for some pronoun X then I expect to find a known website with the name X. But if I search for a general term, then the only reasonable way to thing that a search engine can return is websites that fit the consensus view around that topic.
Take a look at who the author of this "comparison" of search engines is. His next post is describing Zelensky as a neo-Nazi. He claims Putin will exit Ukraine once these "Nazis" have been removed. He says he trusts Putin more than Biden and that the US was responsible for the invasion.
Really, you consider Putin's stated reasons to be the actual reasons for the invasion? And the linked article in that paragraph is just a pile of misinformation (even calling it subjective would be a complement).