Yes it is obvious to me from my searches that there is gross bias.
Before the defenders of big-tech come on to tell us they can do what they want with their property,
1. Is it their property? Have shareholders voted to approve bias?
2. Executives testify to Congress, say one thing, do another, I understand that Michael Flynn got caught on a technical interpretation but big-tech bias is obvious, pervasive, and on-going.

Go to Google and type in:
climate change scam
climate change fraud
... For me, I get nothing back in the immediate search results.
Type in "climate change hoax" and I get "climate change hoax proof" and this link goes on to discredit the folks that are offering evidence (and real science) to show climate change to be a politically motivated religion.

In sundry other cases, I get lists of sites that continue to both support the politically peddled climate change narrative or act to discredit the scientists that are showing "climate change as advertised" to be a fraud.

Next, I went to Bing...
Type in "climate change"
and the first immediate hit that I get is "climate change hoax"
Click the link - the topmost article asks why some people think climate change is a hoax.
However, the second link takes us to http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Google certainly has a heavy bias and is not to be trusted.

One does not need awhistleblower to find Google bias. WikiLeaks reported on the DNA making a deal with them to put favorable results about Hillary regardless of search, during the election. When I check about he Iran head injury (not fall at home), it gave me Hillary's workout clothing. When I searched Congressional pdeophile ring on Google, result 0- When I switched to another search engineg, pages of info on how it works, who has been involved, how mch it brings in, how young the children are, if you don't find it on Google, does not mean it is not ourthere, elsewhere. Google wil become extinct.

I don't like any Google products, especially search. I always use Bing. Much better search engine and I don't see the same bias. (I do have an Android phone because I like Apple even less, and there are no other reasonable choices.)

It will be interesting how long it takes Google to fire this senior engineer for telling the truth and publicly admitting that there is political bias at Google, thus Google executives are lying to Congress during their testimony.

YouTube is a nice platform for a lot of ideas. Other than that, I dont have much desire to use Google, and I understand they are completely biased.

I'm wondering how long before the big tech guys run into the Ma Bell buzz saw, and get torn to pieces. They've acquired so much across the industry, a case can be made for antitrust action by Congress. They may be banking on cover from Democrats by maintaining the bias as a form of insurance.

On another level, Open Markets is the first significant casualty of a broader battle between Silicon Valley and the Democratic Party. These companies—socially liberal, immensely popular, forward-looking—have become enmeshed in the Democratic establishment. They have acquired an enormous amount of political and economic power, thanks in part to a bipartisan consensus on antitrust issues and on the benevolence of the tech industry. But that consensus is starting to fall apart, thanks to a new awareness of the ways in which tech monopolies are crowding out competition and hurting consumer choice. At New America, anti-monopoly apparently became a dealbreaker for Schmidt and Google—there’s no reason to believe that won’t be true across other left-leaning institutions or the Democratic Party itself.

In response, the titans of this industry are starting to act like politicians. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has embarked on a seemingly endless whistlestop-style tour across the country, possibly because he plans to run for president and possibly because his company realizes that PR work is crucial to bolster the company’s image and keep regulators at bay. Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman have launched a platform to Reddit-ify the Democratic Party and remake it in their own image. The vision these tech gurus have outlined is one that retains most of the Democratic Party’s social liberalism, while safeguarding the pro-business laissez-faire philosophy that has allowed Silicon Valley to flourish and that has come under criticism from the left.

Eric Schmidt is an influential figure, even among the parade of powerful characters with whom I have had to cross paths since I founded WikiLeaks. In mid-May 2011 I was under house arrest in rural Norfolk, about three hours’ drive northeast of London. The crackdown against our work was in full swing and every wasted moment seemed like an eternity. It was hard to get my attention. But when my colleague Joseph Farrell told me the executive chairman of Google wanted to make an appointment with me, I was listening.
In some ways the higher echelons of Google seemed more distant and obscure to me than the halls of Washington. We had been locking horns with senior US officials for years by that point. The mystique had worn off. But the power centers growing up in Silicon Valley were still opaque and I was suddenly conscious of an opportunity to understand and influence what was becoming the most influential company on earth. Schmidt had taken over as CEO of Google in 2001 and built it into an empire.1
I was intrigued that the mountain would come to Muhammad. But it was not until well after Schmidt and his companions had been and gone that I came to understand who had really visited me.

*

The stated reason for the visit was a book. Schmidt was penning a treatise with Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, an outfit that describes itself as Google’s in-house “think/do tank.” I knew little else about Cohen at the time. In fact, Cohen had moved to Google from the US State Department in 2010. He had been a fast-talking “Generation Y” ideas man at State under two US administrations, a courtier from the world of policy think tanks and institutes, poached in his early twenties. He became a senior advisor for Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton. At State, on the Policy Planning Staff, Cohen was soon christened “Condi’s party-starter,” channeling buzzwords from Silicon Valley into US policy circles and producing delightful rhetorical concoctions such as “Public Diplomacy 2.0.”2 On his Council on Foreign Relations adjunct staff page he listed his expertise as “terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran.”
It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran.4 His documented love affair with Google began the same year, when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen’s natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a “think/do tank” based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. Google Ideas was born.
Later that year the two co-wrote a policy piece for the Council on Foreign Relations’ journal Foreign Affairs, praising the reformative potential of Silicon Valley technologies as an instrument of US foreign policy.5 Describing what they called “coalitions of the connected,”6 Schmidt and Cohen claimed that

Democratic states that have built coalitions of their militaries have the capacity to do the same with their connection technologies. . . . They offer a new way to exercise the duty to protect citizens around the world [emphasis added].7

In the same piece they argued that “this technology is overwhelmingly provided by the private sector.” Shortly afterwards, Tunisia. then Egypt, and then the rest of the Middle East, erupted in revolution. The echoes of these events on online social media became a spectacle for Western internet users. The professional commentariat, keen to rationalize uprisings against US-backed dictatorships, branded them "Twitter revolutions." Suddenly everyone wanted to be at the intersection point between US global power and social media, and Schmidt and Cohen had already staked out the territory. With the working title “The Empire of the Mind,” they began expanding their article to book length, and sought audiences with the big names of global tech and global power as part of their research.
From this Wikileaks link https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-w...

Aw, there's nothing to see here and you can Google that.

Political bias in tech companies is all part of free speech.
We might disagree with it but we have to defend their right to it just the same.

There's nothing to whistle-blow.