Then you might as well include every major media organization there is since they all thrive on sensationalism. Google should not be in the business of deciding what's appropriate for us to see. I didn't vote them in as the arbiter of truth.

Google is not in that business. The Daily Mail does not allege that Google is preventing it from being accessed. Censorship is not part of this conversation.

Google has 70% market share in searches. Any change to downgrade or not show a specific site is in fact censorship when you have a monopoly like that. The outcome is the same. Stop making excuses for these companies because they're going to do this to things you don't want them to at some point.

The core service that Google provides its users is filtering out useless stuff.

Who's deciding it's useless? I'm not even sure what you mean by that. You're making it sound like it's showing results that aren't what's be searched for.

If I search for something and it's related to what I'm searching for then it is not useless.

The service they provide is to decide that it's useless on your behalf, to save you wading through useless shit.

If I pay an offshore content farm to do content stuffing, do you want my gibberish in your results?

Then it becomes a question of which algorithm you want. Filtering out daily mail bollocks is the kind of thing that keeps me coming back to google. Am I concerned about the implications? sure; but here and now, it's doing exactly what I want.

No, but by using Google you did decide they were most likely to have a good answer to your query (or that they were most convenient), and if they're not allowed to rank results because of 'fairness' that would kind of break the entire value proposition of a search engine

if you use google, then yes you did