American Pie has aged poorly.  They spy on a girl in high school which is sexual assault and child porn because they broadcasted it.  

I never said it was wholesome by modern standards. But if you'd ban it, would you also ban Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Pretty Little Liars? Gossip Girl? The OC?

Teenagers having sex is not this shocking new taboo subject, it's been mainstream in media for decades.

For someone who hasn't played the game, you have a very strong opinion about it. And that obviously makes you be so, so wrong.

The pen thing (which doesn't even show anything graphic by the way, you don't even see the pen. It's just a generic static picture of the girl in question, completely dressed, talking about it) is supposed to be creepy, unsettling and repulsive, not exciting or something along those lines.

If I owned a storefront, yes I would weigh cost of removing American Pie versus damage to my brand.  I would make a business decision that best supports my future growth.  Yes.

As for the other shows, never saw them, I know nothing about them.  

Lots of things have been mainstream for decades.  Like black people not getting lead roles..  or female actresses making a fraction of their male counterparts.  Just because something was acceptable doesn't mean it has to continue being acceptable.  we grow, we learn, we do better.  

Depicting highschoolers in tense scenes is questionable at best.  As a father of highschool females, yes the content doesn't seem ok.  

And Google has a business to run.  Workers to pay.  If they decided it was in their best interest to remove, I simply dont see the problem.

(I felt the same when steam denied that horse game)

Damaging a brand to make a few dozen people happy isn't smart business.  

Sorry but that's a ridiculous comparison.

Teenagers date, flirt, fall in love, and yes, have sex. To pretend this doesn't happen and that it mustn't be so much as talked about like it's some kind of unspeakable taboo is frankly just denying reality.

If the subject objectionable to you, that's fine, you can simply choose not to play Doki Doki Literature Club.

And google can decide it isn't for their storefront. 

My wife does graphic design for a living.  We have had similar discussions.  A group reached out wanting some design logos and websites.  Their group came across as racist adjacent.  She declined the work because it would hurt her brand via association.  Was she wrong?  Was she wrong to turn something down because of brand identity?  Or was she within her rights to decide what is best for her business?  

All google has done is remove something they don't think works with their brand..  why is google wrong?  Why should google be forced to host something that isn't good for their business?  

Edit

and my kids have been educated on sex.  nobody is avoiding it.  the question isn't what do kids do.  the question is, is google within their rights.  

Ecosia's search results are primarily powered by Microsoft Bing, enhanced by Ecosia's own algorithms. In some cases, or for specific features, it may also utilize results from Google...

It's just a layer on top :/

Qwant relies on Bing's search index to provide comprehensive results.

Qwant goes a bit further though but it's still not independent.

Brave and Mojeek seem to be in dependent and you can turn AI off in Brave.

Y’know… I’ll never understand why some people are so willing to engage in what is essentially endless debate on the internet. It’s already challenging enough to convince somebody of your perspective when confined to a single paragraph or two of text, alongside the limitation of only exchanging a few messages per day. Feels so wasteful IMO. I’d rather just read, process, and reshape my perspective, saying anything only if I have need for clarification or have a rebuttal to proposal.

If you don't agree with the semantics of the word freedom in the context of institutions you can use whatever terminology you see more fit to "the right of running their bussines whatever they see fit, as long it's not illegal"

That doesn't happen in DDLC but you realize that art depicting something isn't an endorsement of said thing right? It can depict the outright evilest acts imaginable like torture and genocide, including underage people getting killed, tortured and so on.

The key difference is that the US has the 2nd amendment so the ability to own and use guns largely unrestricted is under no threat at all from minor gun regulation. Getting two thirds of the government to implement a new amendment that nullifies that one is not happening when one of the parties is all in on gun rights. In comparison people in certain other countries would've been right to point out that gun regulation decades ago would lead to more down the line so the slippery slope argument would've been correct for that so it absolutely can be grounded in logic and reality.