There's no such thing as omniscience or perfect prescience and you will always screw up eventually. There's no physical law that says that people can only crucify you if you actually do something bad. Every one of your competitors is doing their level best to set up damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't fork and you will never outplay all of them all of the time. Nothing says that there's always a right answer that is Good. Nothing says that people are any good at all at telling what is Good. Nothing says that the entire population has a single definition of Good; nothing even says that any given situation has a course of action which anyone will perceive as Good. There are subjects on which the public has disjoint definitions of Good.

"Just stay good all the time" is the kind of logic that tears down exactly the people and institutions that we should be supporting. You can argue that they should be doing a better job. You can argue that they have taken on additional responsibility and should live up to it. You can argue that we would be better off if nobody claimed to be good in the first place. But "just stay good all the time" is a myopic double standard, crab-bucket thinking at its finest.

Hey it's their label, not mine. I guess in that sense then yes, "good" it subject to opinion.

But so is "innocent" and "guilty," which is why we have laws to define the two.

Google realizes that "good" is subjective. That's why they have QA, privacy teams, security teams, ect. They rely on a consensus of these groups to define what "good" means to Google using a variety of perspectives.

Choosing to ignore literally all of these mechanisms not only means that something isn't "good," but it's also a pretty clear indicator that the people behind it know it's actually bad.

Then what is the corporate structure for?