This all sounds good in theory, but they're also saying they're going to tackle fact-based issues like flat earthers. Shutting down particular instance of ignorance is fine by me, but the people doing the actual filtering probably will have less than the average intelligence level of the judiciary who imprisoned Galileo for his "dangerous" heliocentric theories, or the peer reviewers who cleared studies on the amazing health benefits of smoking cigarettes for scientific publication, etc.
This kind of curation means brilliance will be on the chopping block as well as ignorance, because laypeople of average intelligence can't tell the difference. Would the plant-based diet for heart disease ever have seen the light of day based on this new "objective" scrutiny? Would the circumcision rate in the US have fallen in the last 10 years?
Also, I'm sure Alphabet Inc. isn't interested in spending a whole lot of money on this endevour, so this will be accomplished by algorithms and 3rd world office workers. Algorithms written by math-heads living in a bubble who don't get much exposure to reality outside of expensive single-race neighborhoods and well-guarded luxury resorts, and workers who are influenced by local cultural and political extremes like caste designations, hard-core religion, anti-religion, Communism, socially acceptable genocide, etc.
This will eventually result in more bias (in a particular direction), not less, because open discussion leads to an overall increase of enlightenment over long periods of time through the pendular motion of ideas, and closed discussion leads to secrecy, status quo, and inertia.