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.

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.

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.  

Hot Take: If a privately-owned distribution site does not find a product to match their values, then they should have every right to not offer the product on their storefront.

Doki Doki not being on Google Play doesn’t mean the game ceases to be for sale— all that means is Google won’t make the game as accessible as it once was. (Though if Doki was only available through the Google Play Store, then that’s more of an issue regarding consolidation of market power rather than a company rejecting a product.) This isn’t censorship but an exercise of Google’s rights.

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.

This is the discussion on wether a business should be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple again.

It should be noted that the "Plus" version of the game includes an alternate scenario without involving us the player. In this scenario, the girls develop their own stories and the bonds between each other, exploring themes like depression, abuse and self-harm in a very realistic, but warming way. There's no gore, there's no sexual content. Just 4 girls going through their problems and supporting each other as friends.

People often leave this part out (well, it's behind a paywall, so it's somewhat understandable), but this content is probably one of the most mature and well put together stories about mental health that I've seen in a video game. And if you play it after the main game, you get an incredibly cathartic effect after all the horror that the girls had to go through. Just for this alone I think it's a game worth playing and definitely shouldn't be pulled off from any store due to "sensitive themes". It helps a lot more than it harms.

I never looked into what the Plus version offers, because I figured it was just a cash grab, specially with that version releasing on consoles, when the original game being on PC was such an important part of the experience.

But... I want to play that now.

This.

If private companies can conduct business however they please, then they can say refuse to serve people based on their gender/race/sexuality, or ban games if they contain LGBT+ content or criticise a government or political party, or any number of things.

Nope.  LGBT have constitutional rights that protect against discrimination.

Videogames dont have constitutional rights.

So no.  Nothing in your post is accurate.

For the last time the game takes place in highschool, which means kids here in the states.  Sexual themes, implied sex, self harm via a group of kids (which is what highschoolers are) is controversial.  Google got rid of it for brand protection.

This couldn't be a more non story.