1. These people are rabble-rousers who will never be happy and are disrupting the work environment at Google.
2. These people are highlighting legitimate problems within the company and are trying to enact positive change.
Take your pick. But be aware of both narratives. And be aware that neither of them is unreasonable.
No, this one is unreasonable. It's this weird narcissistic thing that people do where they define a person's identity by how that person feels about them.
Just because I hate you doesn't mean I'm a hater. I also like things, just not you. Just because I'm unhappy with you doesn't mean that I am not happy, it means I'm not happy with you.
More broadly, you seem to be saying that the only reason anyone is skeptical of the Google protestors is that that the protestors don't like that person. That's quite an assumption. In reality, people simply disagree about things. And there's room for reasonable disagreement.
The difference is that once you establish that it's "defining someone's identity", then disagreement with that person is "denying their right to exist", and so basically violence, from which the person you disagreed with deserve protection. These are the lines along which this kind of conversations typically proceeded inside Google.
Hyperbole doesn't even begin to describe this.
The tech echo-chamber is fostering unrealistic opinions about life and liberty.