I work at a large tech firm and do interviewing and referrals almost routinely. I have regularly excused myself from the opportunity to sit on panels or provide feedback. I can provide all the input I want, but the people making the decision need to not be me or feel pressured by me. That's not a deep ethical challenge in the slightest.

This is Google we're talking about... ethics isn't exactly their strong suit.

Systemic nepotism is not reason to avoid investigating a specific incidents where it is especially prevalent.

There's also a difference between hiring someone you know vs. only hiring a person because you know them.

Besides which it is possible to have hiring practices that make this abuse more difficult: where I work friends & family of a candidate are obligated to identify such prior relationships during the hiring process so that another person can review any decision to hire that candidate.

Maybe things are that bad at Google, but that would be precisely the reason for casting more light on the issue in order to change things.

I don't understand why Google would have to answer for a more expansive charge, rather than the one that's actually leveled.

Of course if you expand any principle to an unreasonable extreme it becomes unreasonable but I don't see how this observation has anything to do with anything.

There is an argument to be made wrt the deleterious effects of modern recruitment's overreliance on informal personal networks.