I disagree entirely. The essential point I want to make is that just because you have a right to something, does not mean you have a right to the material impl

I disagree entirely. The essential point I want to make is that just because you have a right to something, does not mean you have a right to the material implementation of that right. (Because that would mean you had a right to the labour and property of others, i.e. a right to violate their rights). You have a right to free speech. You do not have the right to publish your opinions in any outlet of your choice (because that would violate the publishers' rights). Even if you lived in a small town with only one newspaper, and they wouldn't print your letters to the editor, it still wouldn't be right for you to compel them to print your letters by legal means. They built the audience, its their right to communicate with them as they see fit. (This isn't censorship, because you're still free to hand out flyers in the street, start your own newspaper, sue the existing newspaper if they commit libel, etc). Your argument is essentially that because Google is "the world's largest information system", we shouldn't be "letting" them put whatever content they want on their pages, for whatever reason they want. The implication is that if someone builds something really useful, that thing should become public property. (People are saying the same thing about Twitter). AdWords is absolutely moral because a privately-run service needs a source of funding. (I should note that I do think many PPC ad networks are exploitative and immoral, but that's not the case for Google). Unless someone sets up a nonprofit search engine run by donations, the only alternative is a public, state-funded search engine -- that's the only way to get an "information system not biased by money". On the unlikely possibility that the state could build and maintain such a system, it would be the most powerful tool for potential censorship imaginable.