Comment by vgatherps

I edited my comment on this point and largely I agree, but as far as anyone in Google's position is concerned:

1. This is a rare edge case with asymmetric risk and an easy way to avoid said

2. A single failure could be catastrophic

3. No process is perfect especially in the face of someone actively trying to thwart it

You could try really hard to make sure it's not attackable and pray, for little benefit to Google. Or just tell people "too bad, you're on your own".

Even if this processes was assuredly bulletproof,

> In what world would Google receive criticism for giving back accounts to people who has been proven innocent?

The sort of drivel/clickbait that gets published to 'make a good story' is astounding. Or politicians, not known for honesty, could totally play this up if their base has an axe to grind against Google.

No giant corporation (especially publicly traded) is going to take such risks to revive a few wrongfully terminated email/photo accounts unless they have an obligation to (i.e. should Google be a utility). Their responsibilities aren't to be nice, or act in a good way, but to protect their profits. To the extent that I've seen corporations 'act nice' it's largely been to benefit their own employees or pursue some pet cause of an executive.