One of the versions I have heard about this analogy comes from corn silk. The corn fed to pigs is usually of the lowest quality, and if you use the silk from cheap ears of corn, you won't be able to make a useful purse out of it

Welcome to Muphry's Law!

Don't look for snake tits

Of course, it's possible that Google has paired its withdrawal of advertisements with a lower rating in search results. Do you have any evidence of that happening, or is it pure supposition, like your hypothetical socialist cooperatives?

Google is not restricting anyone's access to the internet, nor is it stopping nakedcapitalism from publishing its articles. It is simply deciding not to advertise on their website, which is a normal business decision that could have been made by a socialist cooperative or any other entity.

It sounds like your issue is with SOciEtY and oUr FoRm of gOvERnmEnT, with a little bit of BUt pEoPLe cAn'T UsE thE INteRNet WiTHoUt gOOgLe sprinkled in, rather than the actions of one company or another. Maybe you should be angry with nakedcapitalism too. They aren't a socialist cooperative either

In a world where Google is a cooperative representing a certian group of proletarians, and nakedcapitalism is a cooperative representing another group of proletarians, would you force them to do business together if one of them were opposed to the idea?

Arguing about what type of government best represents what groups of people does not resolve the basic conflict.

Google has a certain philosophy. You may - or may not - agree with that philosophy, but they have a right to have it.

Google also has the right to refuse to do business with other companies that it deems incompatible with its philosophy. You may - or may not - agree that a certain company's philosophy is incompatible with Google's, but each of those companies is free to decide if they do or do not wish to do business with the other.

Nakedcapitalism is also free to decide if they would like meet Google somewhere in the middle or tell them to pound sand.

The idea that you can force two companies to play nicely together when they clearly don't want to, is not a socialist concept. It is an authoritarian concept

Let's suppose for sake of argument, that you would like to appeal to a benevolent, anarcho-socialist government about Google's actions. You would not be covered by freedom of speech in that instance either. Or be a victim of censorship

Why are you so angry? And why don't you understand that the only rights you can claim protection from, are the ones related to government actions? Whether or not you agree with the idea of government as a way to come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other. That is, Johnny's mom won't force Johnny to play with you if Johnny doesn't want to.

In this analogy, Johnny's mom represents capitalist opression bypassing in counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor

Freedom of speech means that the government shouldn't arbitrarily keep you from expressing yourself in the way you see fit.

Censorship happens when the government supresses certain forms of expression.

Neither of these situations apply to this case. Google - as a non-governmental entity - can freely decide where to advertise and where not to advertise. And nakedcapitalism can freely decide if they wish to continue publishing certain content without Google or stay with Google Ads under their terms and conditions. No one is forcing either side to do anything.

Would you have the government intervene and force Google to advertise on a site they disagree with? Now that would be arbitrary

Sure, if people suddenly switched languages and then laughed in my face, I would feel bad.

But if it's like the other comments in this post, and it's a couple having a quick word about a private matter, I wouldn't mind. It's not like I should be a part of that conversation

It's rude for spouses to have a private conversation? Would whispering be better? Would it be better if they hid in a cupboard where no one could see them?