You are wrong. Google does in fact help to ameliorate those difficulties in allowing people who want a particular niche product to be able to find said niche product.... even when it is not hosted on a large storefront or big site. If you're claiming these same people would choose not to buy the product because it was being disparaged by those who don't like it... Why on earth would they be looking for a product if they cared that said product was being lambasted by people who don't share their interest?
You're incorrect, because as I noted and you already conceded, Google is imperfect; this is the context to which that imperfection is being noted. Leaving aside that Google often doesn't find relevant hits, that it's vulnerable to algorithm manipulation, that things past the first page are often ignored, etc., people still need to be actively searching for things via Google in the first place. That's far less useful than getting your message out to people who aren't already looking for what you're offering.
Simple example... porn. No one and I mean no one has a problem getting it even with all the slack sex industry workers take and those who find it morally offensive, and etc. Your argument just doesn't make sense. It's more likely in the case of these products being published... the market just isn't there or it isn't that big.
Guess what? Porn and RPGs are different, to the point where I honestly don't think this example can be seriously taken as relevant. (And going any further with this example would almost certainly lead to EN World's guidelines being violated, so it should probably best be left at that.)
Again, you have very right to express your opinion on someone's fictional work. Am I wrong because I would tell someone asking me about Lovecraft's work... He's a racist and there are undertones of that through vast portions of his work, same with Howard. Some would claim I am vilifying the man, I don't think I am.
You're wrong to conflate "expressing your opinion" with "attacking someone else for what they've made." You have every right to say that you don't like something, why you don't like it, etc. By all means, make all the "I" statements you want when it comes to how a particular piece of media makes you feel.
But when you make "you" statements (i.e. about the creator, or anyone who likes their work), let alone when you take it upon yourself to try and cause them social harm or face economic consequences, then you've left behind simply issues of opinion, and decided that you know what kind of person someone else is, and that you have a moral mandate to punish them for their turpitude. That is not virtuous, at least within the context of someone else publishing fiction. There is no moral virtue in saying that the creators of a piece of fiction are bad people, and that anyone who does business with them should be ashamed of themselves.
Are these hypothetical people? Do you have an example of this because I'd love to see the type of "righteous Indignation" you're talking about and whether it really is as cut and dry as you seem to be making it out to be.
Ah, I was wondering when we'd get to the "this doesn't really happen" portion of the back-and-forth. Sure, how about The Gaming Goat.
This was a company which put out a deckbuilding game (i.e. non-collectible card game) about bass fishing on Kickstarter
a while back. Sounds as innocuous as it gets, right?
Except, get this: they had the following image on their KS page:
Looks about as innocuous as it gets, right? Except you'll notice that two of the frog's toes are touching, which some people took to mean it was making the "okay" gesture...i.e. a white power
Yes, some people actually thought that this illustration was coded language.
Naturally, The Gaming Goat thought that this was ridiculous, and so couldn't help but treat the subject with irreverence, which is the correct response when such incredibly bad-faith claims are raised! They made a joking reference to the issue:
And pointed out that their illustrator was working off of a real-world example:
...and left it at that, at which point everyone had a laugh about the whole thing and moved on.
Oh, no, wait, that's not what happened. Instead, incensed at how their "concerns" weren't being taken seriously, the outraged minority moved to absolutely destroy the people who hadn't treated their upset as Very Serious Business:
The end result was that The Gaming Goat was kicked out of Gen Con 2021, losing (according to them) over $40,000 that wasn't reimbursed:
Gen Con 2021 starts tomorrow at reduced capacity with a self-imposed 50% cap on attendance. As most people know, Gen Con 2020 was canceled along with just about every other convention due to the on…
Now, I suppose Gen Con might have had for some other, undisclosed reason for ejecting them, but I haven't heard of anything being proposed.
All of which is to say, the issues raised about the outraged mob are not theoretical. It has caused real harm to real people, far more so than an illustration of a frog with its toes touching could possibly have inflicted on anyone.