I apologize in advance for the long answer, but this actually turns out to be a relatively difficult issue to unpack.
If I understand what you're saying correctly, the issue is that, in your view, these questions are low-effort questions that can usually be answered by Google in a short period of time, and answers tend to reiterate what appears on Google. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this problem statement, but I think I have it reasonably on point.
If I'm right about the issue you're raising, I think the point is a valid concern worth thinking about. I also think there are two critically important issues with the frame of your question here.
The first one comes down to a pretty simple statement: readily-Googleable information about literature, especially about the banning and censorship of popular literature, tends to be woefully incomplete. When it comes to answers about censorship, the answers provided by Google, and especially the answers to that question about Call of the Wild in particular, tend to be very incomplete. Googling an answer tends to only scratch the surface of what's really going on. In the example you've highlighted, the answers seem to boil down to "because Nazis and socialism." That's not a complete answer to the question. Even the top answer (at the time of writing this question) just gives a well-referenced answer to sources that, themselves, don't bother going below the surface of why these books were banned. The second answer (again, at the time of writing) (now) hits the nail on the head.
A true answer to the question about why a book is banned needs to consider a lot of information that may not be readily available from a couple quick searches. A thorough answer should consider the sociopolitical climate that caused the banning, at a level deeper than "it's pro-socialist." It should consider what specific content of the books led to it being banned (because usually there's something in particular), and whether the reasons for its banning line up with what the author was trying to communicate at all. It needs to consider whether the message was correctly received, or whether there were ulterior motives for doing so.
The thing is, books aren't typically banned just because they espouse a political view. There are very few times in history when broad swaths of literature end up banned for what they represent (and even those demonstrate deeper cultural points worth discussing). Thinking about it in that way leaves a very problematic open question: why that book in particular?
In reference to the specific Call of the Wild example, existing answers are missing a lot of context about why, specifically, Call of the Wild was banned. What about that book led to it being banned? Why did they find it so objectionable? Why was it selected and categorized in a way that led to its banning? Why was it noticed at all? If you just Google the answer, you get something like this:
Not only have objections been raised here, the book was banned in Italy, Yugoslavia and burned in bonfires in Nazi Germany in the late 1920s and early 30s because it was considered “too radical.” (source)
That's a bad answer, and we both know it. (Who considered it "too radical"? Why did they think it was radical? Why is "too radical" in quotes, anyway - did someone actually write or say that?)
The second challenge to the frame of your question is more structural in a Stack Exchangeian way. It's not necessarily true that easily-Googleable questions are bad here. Should we embrace non-Googlers? is worth a read.
What it boils down to, though, is this: if we can reasonably give a better answer than Google can, we should accept the question, so that we can take advantage of the opportunity to do so. If we can't, then I agree, it's a waste of our time to try to answer. However, I hope I've shown above that, in the case of censored literature, we do indeed have the ability and opportunity to do so, if given the chance.
I hope I've been able to change your view about the actual complexity of questions about why literature ends up banned, and I hope that this answer helps situate these questions as squarely on-topic. However, if not, that's okay, too! At minimum, I hope I've given some food for thought.