No, it doesn't. I think it shows precisely what's going on in every MegaCorp in the US: Woke Capitalism. Everything is calculated to maximize profit, including campaigning, branding, and marketing to say that you're NOT all about profit.
In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with the real goal: maximizing the success of the company, as measured by profits. When viewed through this lens, these actions do not conflict. In fact, BOTH are REQUIRED.
These only APPEAR to conflict when you think that top leadership actually REALLY cares about anything other than money, and the influence it brings.
What could a company like Google do to convince you that this isn't the case, if it truly isn't the way you imagine for that company? Because it sounds like there isn't anything.
The comment you're replying to is hot-blooded, but your question has a simple answer nonetheless. Sergei Brin stands in front of the "activist employees" at an all-hands and tells them that he strongly disagrees with some of their political beliefs, and that while they're welcome to advocate for them, those beliefs will find little purchase so long as he remains president of Alphabet.
But that's not how he runs that company -- which is the point.
Capitulate constantly to their Workers' demands, converting their authoritarian management hierarchy into a worker-led cooperative, buying back their stock and issuing it to their users.
Not retaliating at workers. Not being in the business of more efficient murder. Not paying smart people a lot of money to ensure as little profit possible goes towards public use.
There really is no other credible argument that they could give. Business must grow, if they don't they die.
It's predatory no doubt, and Google certainly can't be considered an honest broker. But this dichotomy is necessary in today's hysterical environment that social media has created.
Perhaps re-labeling major (and unprecedented) communication/organization platforms from "businesses" to something akin to "utilities"—or, more radically, "platform coops"—would quash such apologia.
In this case, both the saying of soothing things to the people who are complaining, AND lobbying the government to make those complaints less effective in the future are in line with the real goal: maximizing the success of the company, as measured by profits. When viewed through this lens, these actions do not conflict. In fact, BOTH are REQUIRED.
These only APPEAR to conflict when you think that top leadership actually REALLY cares about anything other than money, and the influence it brings.