It's a bad analogy because killing people (a hitman) is categorically wrong, and illegal, in all instances. Serving ads, and targeted ads, is legal, but in some

It's a bad analogy because killing people (a hitman) is categorically wrong, and illegal, in all instances. Serving ads, and targeted ads, is legal, but in some circumstances many would consider it unethical. Is it ethical to serve anti-abortion messages/services to pregnant women in any circumstances? I would say no, all health related advertising should be restricted to medical services, rather than religious ones. But if you believe, as some Americans do, that abortion (at any date, including fewer cells than in a mole) is literally murder, they consider health information the same as Google providing advertising for hit men. They would love to censor medical information they same way they are censoring history and science. The commercial interests would oppose any restrictions on their ability to make money from the health industry. Their pockets are even deeper than religious fundamentalists are. Fundamentally opposed positions, and gerrymandered electorates, make resolution through legislation impossible. Which leaves activism, electoral/judicial reform contests, privately funded education campaigns, and counter messaging as effective strategies.