The point isn't entirely about rights: corporations have users and they don't like to piss them off.
Obviously, Google can afford to piss off a few people without dying out, but good copywriting is probably worth it, in terms of avoiding bad press (and generally creating nice UX).
Beyond that, if it's true that Google has no obligations to users, it's equally true that users have no obligations to Google. So they can go ahead and be as irrationally angry about any Google decision as they want. That's how the market works--it does not care whether your anger is rational or not.
Comments
The point isn't entirely about rights: corporations have users and they don't like to piss them off.
Obviously, Google can afford to piss off a few people without dying out, but good copywriting is probably worth it, in terms of avoiding bad press (and generally creating nice UX).
Beyond that, if it's true that Google has no obligations to users, it's equally true that users have no obligations to Google. So they can go ahead and be as irrationally angry about any Google decision as they want. That's how the market works--it does not care whether your anger is rational or not.
Using "Guilty until proven otherwise" implies a rights-based discussion, or else it wouldn't be used.
I agree that it's really bad press though (especially given how this has been a consistent issue ever since G+ appeared).