So, in a shocking twist, the search engine returns what you ask for. Clearly, we shouldn't go after the people providing the material. Clearly, we shouldn't go after the people receiving the material. Obviously, we should go after the streetmap telling the druggies how to get to the buy.
You're partially right. This is to piss people off. But they're not going to get pissed at Warner. They're going to get pissed at Netflix. The average person is terrible at following causal chains. Nor are they likely to realize it's Warner pulling it's movies without going looking for it. They'll just see "Netflix used to give me this movie, now it doesn't. Netflix sucks."
Warner wants to drive people out of VOD entirely by ruining their trust that it will continue to provide value.
There comes a point, in any argument that runs long enough, where the best thing you can do is shut up. That it's the best thing doesn't mean shutting up is a good thing, though. A company interested in maintaining a good relationship with its customer base (EA has demonstrated that it is not one of these) should not let things get to the point where fans look at anything coming out of the company is either a lie, wrong, or meaningless pacifying.
Actually, you can be added to a group without any action on your part, I was added to several by friends (Admittedly, most of them were things I didn't object to being in). I suspect there's an option somewhere in the privacy settings to change that, but I'll be damned if I can find it.
If Amazon has an acceptible use policy, they don't have the responsibility to validate that the content meets it, but they do have the right to. Unless you're suggesting that Amazon as a retailer should be compelled to carry any product someone wants them to. Would you also suggest that any publishers he sent the book to should be compelled to produce the book? If I go to Amazon because I want to sell a flaming, spiked, triple-ended dildo, should they be required to carry that as well? Amazon does not have a requirement to carry any product someone wants to sell on it. Refusing to carry a book that does not meet preexisting publication requirements is not censorship of the book. Seeking to prevent anyone from carrying it is, but that's not what's going on here.
Is it bad PR? Maybe. Has Amazon done something terrible? No.
I'm not really sure I can work up any outrage over this. Amazon only has a couple of (admittedly broad and subjective) content restrictions (available at https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=A2TOZW0SV7IR1U ). If they don't have anyone who can validate that the content meets these requirements, I don't think I have much problem with them choosing not to carry it. They're pretty up front about only supporting a half dozen or so languages, so it's not like they're singling out Cornish.