No, many European countries requires you to be physically present on their national soil if you want to present a request for asylum. Embassies etc isn't technically considered national soil(except in the media) since the host country can in theory revoke the embassy.

If a law that would let you force Google to delist you or certain stuff then the same law could than likely be used to force those background check agencies to expunge certain data as well. Yes you would have to know about those background check agencies but if/once you do then you could serve them with the equivalent of a DMCA cease and desist letter.

No, as I see it it's almost a textbook case.
Deception is an act to propagate beliefs/things that are not true or not the whole truth.
Displaying paid for advertisements in a way where it is not readily apparent that they are ads and not regular search results is deceptive, it's comparable to a lie by omission. Yes, the government is free to set whatever rules it likes, including limitations on what rules and regulations it can make at a later date, but the regulation that it cannot take certain actions is descendant from the government at some point. To be able to regulate what the United States may or may not do there needs to be a United States to regulate and to be able to make laws for a nation you need to have the power of the government.

No one is twisting Google's arme either, they're free to take their business elsewhere if the climate or price of doing business gets too high for their tastes.
A government is free to set whatever rules it wants for doing business within their jurisdiction, you have as a business you can either choose to comply or choose not to do business there, noone is twisting your arm or forcing you to do anything.

There needs to be a separation because showing paid for results as matched search results is deceptive.

In Sweden the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years.

Nobody has been held accountable because the person who greenlighted the entire thing and therefore accountable, the foreign affairs minister Anna Lindh was murdered before this event came to light, so the accountable cannot be held accountable unless you know of some way to ressurrect the dead to face charges.

Yes that event is very unfortunate and shameful but to claim that the highly public Julian Assange would face the same risk as two "faceless" unknown Egyptians is absurd. When that event came to light there was a big public outcry, the government could not just quietly shuffle Assange over to the US without anyone knowing or noticing.

The UK Supreme Court disagrees with you, in the verdict on extradition they pretty clearly stated that they were of the opinion that The actions Assange stands accused of would constitute a crime in the UK as well.

Sweden cannot make that guarantee because extradition here is a judicial process and the government like in most civil states is forbidden from meddling in the affairs of the courts. The govenment can overrule the courts under certain circumstances such as if Assange was risking death or torture if he was extradited.
The only thing the Swedish government could do to prevent a lawful extradition would be to rescind the extradition agreement with the US...

You are correct, and the correct counter to that would have been to go to Sweden and face his day in court and to undermine his accusers. What Assange is doing is playing right into their hands, he makes himself seem as nothing more than someone trying to avoid being prosecuted for rape.
And trying to avoid being persecuted for rape makes him seem guilty. And people tend to have very little respect for rapists.
Yes he hasn't been convicted yet and ought to be considered innocent until proven otherwise but since when has the media ever cared about that?

Diplomatic mail can only contain stuff for official use, if the UK can prove that Ecuador is abusing that system they can go ahead and open it. The same thing has been done on multiple occasions where the host country has suspected that diplomatic mail was being used to smuggle drugs.

According to article 27 of the Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations only official correspondence of the diplomatic mission is inviolable: Julian Assange can hardly be considered official correspondence of the Ecuadorian Diplomatic Mission to the United Kingdoms and hence his shipment is not inviolable.

No, the UK setting aside the international treaties regarding embassies etc would be a huge deal even if Ecuador is a tiny insignificant bug. Simply because it creates a very dangerous precedent, if the Brittish can do it then so can any dictator/despot as well.

Officially he is a suspect. The prosecutor filed a national warrant for his arrest(they can do that over here), but since then a district court has found that there is reasonable grounds for him to be detained, Assange appealed this verdict twice, first to the Svea Hovrätt(Svea Court of Appeals) which rejected the appeal, he later also appealed the rejection to the Swedish Supreme Court, the Supreme Court as well rejected that appeal.
So yes there was initially some doubt over the validity of the european arrest warrant(because the legal systems work somewhat different, swedish prosecutors have some powers their brittish equivalents doesn't) but that has long since been corrected.

The Swedish government or legal sytem CANNOT guarantee that he won't be extradited prior to receiving a request for extradition because it is largely a judicial matter, the government can overrule the court under some circumstances, such as if there is considered to be a risk that the extradition target risks torture or death if he is extradited.
On the other hand if Assange is handed over to the Swedish authorities both the Swedish authorities and the UK authorities would have to agree to extradite him to the US for that to actually happen because according to the framework for the European arrest warrants you cannot forther extradite somone without the permission of the original extraditing country.

The right of asylum enshrined there relates to persecution on certain protected grounds, such protected grounds may for example be persecution based on race, gender, nationality, political opinions etc.
Trying to avoid being persecuted for rape is not one of those protected grounds and thus the UK has no duty to accept Assange as having the right of asylum. I quote from the UNHCR Introductory to the treaty text:
"The Convention does not however apply to all persons who might otherwise satisfy the definition of a refugee in Article 1. In particular, the Convention does not apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, or are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and prin- ciples of the United Nations."

Rape is definitely not a political crime and most jurisdictions certainly recognize it as a serious crime. Thus there is plenty of reason to see Assange's pleas for Asylum as invalid.

Assuming that the UK recognizes Elbonia as a state that could possibly be true. If a country doesn't recognize a nation then it doesn't recognize that it has obligations any obligations, and hence there would be no diplomatic immunity.

Sure they can't act against the vehicle itself unless it poses a danger to the public. But if it boards a ferry they will just put a ring of police around the limo and order the ferry to come to a halt a few nautical miles off the coast and then Assange would really be in a shitty situation because instead of staying in an embassy indefinitely he would have to stay in a car indefinitely. Or they could just let the ferry get into international waters and then some "pirates" would conveniently appear.
Same thing if he tries to get on a plane, to get from the diplomatic limo to the diplomatic aircraft he would have to cross Brittish territory so you just place 50 police at the entrances of the aircraft, problem solved.
It is also completely legal to impound a diplomatic vehicle for traffic violations and the likes. So if they suspect Assange is hiding in a limo they'll either have a convenient prior reason to impound(a lot of diplomatic vehicles have at least one traffic ticked issued at some point or another) it or they can probably make sure the vehicle breaks some traffic violation during the transport and then they would have cause to impound it. Then Assange would be sitting in an impound lot surrounded by police until he decides to get out of the limo or risks starving to death in which the police can act to save his life and then arrest him.

A Google data center does not enjoy any extraterritorial status so the police would just waltz in there and drag him out kicking and screaming, case closed. Embassies are tricky things and could cause a minor crisis(minor because Ecuador is a pretty minor concern for most nations)