> but again the censorship bubble is making this difficult

What is a reliable way of determining whether that statement is true?

For example, do you have URLs of news articles that are not found by major search engines (or are ranked questionably low for the given query)?

"right-wing activist killed"

produces plenty of responses including the Portland protest. Cnn is not on the first page though.

"left-wing kills police officer"

oddly enough produces mostly right-wing violence. Putting "left-wing" in quotes helps a lot though.

> Cnn is not on the first page though.

It is for me. In an incognito tab as well.

> "left-wing kills police officer" > oddly enough produces mostly right-wing violence. Putting "left-wing" in quotes helps a lot though.

Can you give an example of an article that you would have expected instead for that query? I.e. one that you feel has been left out, or ranked too low?

So you mentioned hundred of death... and can only find one (and the killer said he acted in self defense)

The example of attack against the police station can clearly be seen as terror attack. But no dead people there while you were mentioning hundred of them.

> and the killer said he acted in self defense

I'm sorry, but that's misinformation. The killer was on video actively searching for potential targets, and repeatedly referred to himself as a soldier in a civil war. Instead turning himself in, like you're supposed to do in a lawful self-defense situation, he crossed state lines while fleeing from police. He later attempted to shoot the police when they finally found him.

Just because censorship is pervasive does not actually change the historical record. I've posted enough to prove my point. I would invite you to watch the hundreds of hours of violent riot footage instead, but Google already made sure to scrub all of it off of YouTube.

Welp this is quite the goalpost moving, "hundreds of killings" and now we're debating the motives of one single guy.

Hyperbole undermines credibility.