So, you always make the more "convenient" decisions instead and pretend there aren't any problems?
If this is the result of company culture then this is indeed not the individual's fault, but I sure hope I can at least comment on it?
Denying a problem is senseless but you have to pick your battles. It's a waste of time and political capital to question some decisions. You have to pick the hill you want to die on.
Strategic decisions are divided into at least the following categories:
1. Decisions and practices that are effectively written in stone. You probably aren't, for example, going to be able to move Google away from a monorepo. It can be difficult to identify this category from outside the organization.
2. Decisions that are open to influence by people in that part of the org chart. The Chrome developers, for example, probably have some influence on Google's involvement in WHATWG. Someone who works on ad quality probably doesn't.
3. Decisions that seems possible from outside the organization but the inside perspective is quite different.
4. Decisions that anyone can influence. Some of the successful Google protests fall into this category.
5. Decisions that only a director can influence because they don't listen to anyone below them in the org chart. Google is large enough that there are probably some directors like this.
Google has been pursuing non-advertising sources of income for at least a decade; your other asks fall into at best category #2.