These people do not represent the majority of googlers' views or experiences IMO. I am sure there are genuine grievances, but they're representing a tiny-but-vocal minority group that is bringing the company into disrepute over what I think are relatively run of the mill problems that happen everywhere.
For want of a better term, they strike me as "trouble makers". Re-orgs happen all the time in Google - it is quite common for people to arrive at work and discover that their job has been re-orged out of existence and they've got to find a new role for themselves within 60-90 days, or basically get sacked. If you were a manager with spare headcount and literally 100s of qualified applicants (internal and external) for that headcount on your team, would you take on someone who is a known agitator and does a lot of "off piste" work, is divisive, and generally ruffles feathers instead of getting their work done? Or pick one of the other brilliant & experienced people without a history of stirring up shit for social media outrage points?