>Here in 2018, I'm not that worried about Google's position as world's information arbiter and how it chooses to censor content. Why, if I might ask? "Google"

>Here in 2018, I'm not that worried about Google's position as world's information arbiter and how it chooses to censor content. Why, if I might ask? "Google" has entered the common lexicon as a generic term for "search the internet for something". The amount of power they wield, ignoring all other power aside from the ability to rank the search results of most internet users, is massive and I think this cannot be overstated or minimized. This is a non-fallacious version of the slippery slope. Just because you're okay with the "do the right thing" nee "don't be evil" Google of today does not mean you'll be okay with the Google of tomorrow having that power. Consider very carefully whether you want any one particular company to have that power, and what the remedies are if Google ever does go full evil. On a side note, it absolutely reeks of double standards on many of the commenters here to castigate Google for their Chinese censorship while giving them a pass for what is described herein. Censorship is only bad when done at the behest of a state? I don't understand this sentiment. I want no third party deciding for me what is "hate speech" and deciding I shouldn't be able to see it as a result. With a special emphasis on the second part of that phrase.