You are not required to present all of the information on your platform at once in order to be considered a platform. Indeed, it is generally accepted that platforms, by their very nature, are not able to do so.
Censorship can come from anyone and anywhere. Especially when a private company like Google has more power that many governments in the world. Google could even be considered an un-elected government depending on how you look at it.
What they are doing by de-platforming people is censorship.
They offer no clue as to how their algorithm works or why some people get up on the list while others don't.
While they could theoretically show all 1,690,000,000 results, we know for a fact that just the first or second page at tops is what matters. So, in all practicality, the other results do not exist.
If the other results do not exist, then they are a publisher and should be treated as such since they pick the winners and losers.
If there's nothing wrong with what they are doing, what's the problem of calling then a publisher? Why not embrace it and take full responsibility?
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
If I have a blog, and I ban someone from commenting, I don't lose my 230 protections. Even though I've 'de-platformed' someone from my blog. Google is no different than a blog, just scaled up.
He is saying that any hit not on the first two pages of google's search results, doesn't exist, and is therefore being deplatformed?
That's a ludicrous position. Those hits do very much exist, and google will display to you each result in turn hoping you find something to click on. If his argument is taken at face value, the vast majority of hits, on every search term, for every user, is being deplatformed. That's just not the case. You can't really say you're being deplatformed, because you're not on the first page.
When I refer to deplatforming I’m talking about users and opinions being banned from the plaftorms (YouTube, Twitter, FB, etc).
When I’m referring to search engine results what I’m saying is that Google is promoting a few selected sites over others based on a undisclosed criteria. The undisclosed criteria here is what makes a world of difference.
By not making it clear they are picking winners and that should not happen.
Just because a problem is hard to solve it doesn’t mean that an authoritarian solution is acceptable.
It seems like you don't agree. Maybe you could make the case about the reason you don't agree and we can go from there.
Just on a technical basis, no, it won't: https://www.google.com/search?q=testing&start=1090: "Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. (You asked for results starting from 1090.)"
Arguments based on that are therefore void.
To nitpick: no it's not. Government censorship is worse than other forms because the state is an entrenched, nearly irreplaceable power structure with lots of inertia, but that doesn't mean non-state censorship is perfectly fine.
Any platform that curates content is censoring. Sometimes that's fine (illegal content), and sometimes it's just not acceptable.
"I see you edited our software in violation of the DMCA, the police will arrive shortly"