If yes, how?
If no, do you think it's better for them to attempt to compensate in a way that is feasible, or to do nothing?
Find why women don't take admissions in STEM as much as men do. If there isn't any human-made reason, then let it be. Don't force equal numbers down the throat of deserving candidates.
What is currently going on in the world isn't going to solve the problem of race/gender based problems.
The reason I asked about your view of feasibility here is that you seem to be arguing that Google (and others with diversity preference in hiring) are making the wrong choice. But the alternatives you seem to favor are not a real choice Google could execute. It's not like they thought about massively altering the perception and delivery of STEM education to all kids, figured out an effective affordable method to do that, and then just did diversity hiring instead because the VP of HR felt like it.
You could certainly make the argument that there's a better choice they could make, or that their apparent choices are doing more harm than good. But right now you're comparing against an impossible straw-man so it's hard to take the argument seriously.
certainly. These companies have funds that can compete with entire country's governments. They can definitely do outreach at the elementary level and provide funds to entire towns, encourage an environment of tech, and more if they wished to.
Do they? no. mostly because these are long term solutions that do nothing in the now outside of a small PR boost. Doing this on a major scale may also cost them profits for a while, which would not reflect well on their stocks.