I'd go even further and say that the FAANGs plan for this "time bomb" effect. They hire mostly impressionable kids, and the rate at which they hire is based on an expectation of short tenures (even by the historical standards of this young industry). Their famously high compensation levels are not just about attracting talent but also about keeping that tenure from being even shorter. They know that people's misgivings and frustrations will add up over time. They know that the "price of their souls" in Cornet's graph will keep increasing. Everything from their onboarding processes to their review/promotion processes to their engineering standards are designed to reduce and/or make up for this kind of attrition.
Hiring people with a particular kind of politics doesn't make any sense at all for them, whether that kind is enlightened or yours. The only kind of culture they select for is around non-political issues such as technical approaches and work/collaboration styles.
Seriously?
If their tests selected for a differing ideology from the points you state, would you be happy?
He's saying that there may be centrists or conservative people with Google level engineering skills that have no issue with things like ICE or military contracts.
I'd imagine such characters would not be popular inside the company, and best shut up. Hence, you could argue the culture already pre-selects for progressive ideology.
The "women in tech" memo is a perfect example of it. Sure enough, it was clumsy and likely full of inaccuracies. But the core thesis is hardly harmful or controversial. It was saying that women have less "tendency" to be interested in hardcore tech, therefore aggressively enforcing quotas on this representation is something you could at the very least debate.
The memo doesn't even classify as specifically right-wing. It's just a counter point against how to achieve diversity and how far to take that goal, and which method to use.
The consequence is that he's fired on the spot.
So that proves the point. Centrists and conservatives, or anybody challenging the most progressive views can work at Google yet best shut up. Ideological selection is already in place.
At my 2 previous jobs, I was explicitly asked during interview what my position was on "diversity" and "equity". To this day, I still don't know what that had to do with me writing code.
It's not the employees that are a bad culture fit; the employees are the culture. It's these projects.
This problem will resolve itself over time though. If Google continues to lean into these projects, it will self-select for people who have no ethical qualms with them. But for over a decade, such selection was unnecessary.
Maybe better technology could improve it?