You seem to read only the lines that you can creatively contort to validate your belief and ignore the rest. I don't think you are intentionally doing this, but it seems quite apparent that it is happening anyway from my vantage point. The Google comments mention user data in addition to the servers themselves, and many of the comments refer to surveillance in general.

If the media claims turn out to be true nobody is going to think "Oh, Google was telling the truth the whole time!" As I mentioned, there is no practical difference between this statement being "true" in the sense that you creatively "read" it and an outright lie. No reasonable person would read these statements in the way that you have.

You seem to be having a really hard time simultaneously holding the idea that the media reports are correct and the idea that Google/the big tech industry is trustworthy, hence the mental gymnastics. You're going to have to drop one of those two ideas. You will eventually.

Of course I am discarding some texts and doing a hostile interpretation of others. The reason for this is, that not all texts are created equal. Some, like the Larry Page one, are created by lawyers and PR specialists in endless meetings. The Google blog post in particular has the purpose of limiting the damage to the Google brand. For this it needs to sound good first of all, but it also needs to contain a sliver of truth so that the company can not be forced to retract it, which would just further damage the brand.

So implying something, while actually reporting something different is a lie, but it is a highly specific type of lie. And it is quite often quite interesting to do these mental gymnastics to uncover the sliver of truth in these statements.