“authoritarians” sounds a little vague. Could you by chance specify who these “authoritarians” are? Also, I’m not arguing that businesses should be “banning and censoring anything they deem immoral.” All I’m saying is that private entities should have the right to not promote products as they so please. Are you suggesting that the government step in and ban businesses from excluding products on their storefronts?

Sounds a lot like “It’s not okay to ban things I like, but I am okay with banning things I don’t like”— for instance, I don’t believe you would’ve been too upset if this was a game featuring child p0rnography. Nor if it was a game which promoted harmful ideologies such as rejection of the holocaust. But because it was surrounding a matter which you personally didn’t find worthy of a ban (which TBH I don’t see too much issue with wanting to suppress a product on your own storefront which showcases such an aggressive perspective on a topic as sensitive as suicide), all the sudden it’s an issue.

Note: I won’t respond beyond this message. Online discourse is kinda a waste when it devolves into debate. You aren’t gonna convince either side, and that’s kinda just how it is. I would love to hear a thoughtful, open response to my remarks here… perhaps I can be swayed to continue chatting. :)

Collective Shout are one example of a lobbyist actively pushing for game censorship; last year they instigated a purge of adult games on Steam through pressuring Visa and Mastercard to block payments: https://thatparkplace.com/visa-and-mastercard-are-reportedly-censoring-video-games-alongside-australian-activist-group-collective-shout/

Plenty of politicians have also taken aim at adult games under the guise of "protecting kids."

We're not talking about child porn being banned here, this is a game that's been hosted on major storefronts without issue since 2017 and it was never a problem before.

You didn’t really address any of the substance of my comment— I’m dropping this convo.

This.  Google has a business to run and public perception is a huge aspect.  Banning something a few dozen people care about to help their image, which hundred of millions care about, it smart business.

As an example.  My wife does website graphic design.  Should she be forced to help out the Proud Boys?  Or should she have the freedom of telling them to pound sand because association is bad for her business?

Yes, this is my position

Mine too.  If I own a store, I decide what I sell.  Nobody else. 

My understanding is this game is highschool girls where your decisions can lead to sexual aspects and self harm.

If I were google, I wouldn't want it on my store.

They can sell it directly, that is their problem, not Google's.

What if every person in the country voted for a fascist party? Would that be OK or not? 

What is with this repeated point about companies having the right to do it? Not a single person in this thread has said that Google should be legally forced to host it so it's completely irrelevant. Companies can do what their prefer but it'd better if big ones like Google were less restrictive in terms of what is allowed on their store fronts cause it'd improve freedom of expression and in general be helpful towards risqué and unconventional art. There's also that this happening is absurd considering what other sort of things are on the Play Store.

That would be legal, but bad. Similar to this move by Google and if every online store decided to cut DDLC. 

And just like this, it would be a symptom instead of the problem. Here, the problem are the parties pressuring Google to take this action, and Google taking this action is only the symptom. Treat this symptom, and another symptom will turn up somewhere else unless the root cause is also fixed somehow. Treating the symptom will sure make things seem nicer though.