Where there is smoke, there is usually fire; however, I would have liked to see more investigation and some corroboration from another employee. As it stands, these claims are not concrete enough to take at face value; although, I do believe if Google does feel the need to influence an election, they could do so with minimal effort which is disconcerting.

The entire article is based on one disgruntled former employee's claims, making the "evidence" of these accusations one man's anecdotal evidence. I'm not saying that his claims are untrue, but there was no evidence provided in the piece that they are in fact true. It would have been nice to have seen snapshots of the supposed message board.

First, given that the former Google Engineer did say these things, this article gets an overall positive rating. However, this article is clearly anecdotal evidence that needs more investigating to find more cases... perhaps from someone not 'blacklisted' and who might have the motive to retaliate.

I googled "Crippled America" and the first page of returns were about Trump's book with no mention of "Mein Kampf" in the three pages I examined. So either the guy is not telling the truth or Google fixed the problem which would seem to discredit his claim. Using a disgruntled employee as the sole source for an article is bad journalism.

Based on what happened to James Damore, and the number of conservative YouTuber's who have been de-monetized, I have no doubt that Google is a very liberal organization. This belief is in no way reinforced by this article. The source here sounds disgruntled and unhappy and whiny. What he says may be true, but while Damore documented things carefully, there is no documentation here, and just a bunch of hearsay.

The entire article is based on unsubstantiated guesswork by a disgruntled former employee.

While the article reports what the former Google employee says, it does not present any corroborating evidence. There is no attempt to get a statement from Google on any of the claims regarding the former employee's employment, issues, or reason for termination.

The whole article is a repetitive illustration of the views and opinion of one of Google's former employees. The article references specific episodes such as a former employee blacklist, a message on an internal message board, a bug of the google search engine, a bug report being ignored, but none of the above are backed up by any kind of reference. The only references that keeps being brought up throughout the short article are the direct quotes of the employee in question. With this I am not saying that the man is stating the false, but rather that the article doesn't provide the reader with enough evidence to make his own critical view on the matter and results in being a piece that provides only anecdotal evidence.

I'd like to see organizations choosing better stories to repeat than single-source opinion pieces playing to their strong political bias. Giving racism-apologists such a strong, unfettered voice is only dangerous to society and where we draw the line of acceptance toward cruelty and hate. It's obvious the employee was fired after contravening strong company policy, and loudly voicing a sticky accusation of political bias from a tech company is irony from this facilitator at best; at worst it's irresponsible considering only one of those actors needs to present as impartial.