Fair - added a note to my comment. Thank you.

Okay this one has always cracked me up.

The constitution people always love talking about the amendments like they're gospel. But like, if the constitution was so great, why do you care about the changes to it? If we make a new amendment does it instantly become as sacred emotionally to them?

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution is a part of the US Constitution that prohibits laws violating certain specific rights, two of them being the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Many other countries have some equivalent to this too.

The relevance here is that taking photos of public spaces is part of freedom of speech and of the press.

The U.S. 1st amendment actually does have some implications for your speech even though you're in Europe and (presumably) not a U.S. citizen.

...How? It's made for the government not to take away rights. Like it's bad, but it's the bare minimum. It could be worse. There's a 14th, 19th, first 10 amendments for a reason. I don't like the US harming my privacy and the constitution, even though it takes a lot of effort to force, still prevents even more exploitation from happening...

You switched gears in the middle of your statement. Either photography from the public spaces is legal or it isn't. The only reason I don't consider these take-downs a first-amendment violation is because Google is providing the mechanism to do it. They legally have every right to take the picture of your house and tell you to go pound sand if you don't like it.