Looking more closely, this is just about distribution, probably in terms of "content hosting". It doesn't target individuals or families storing whatever they want for themselves. This made more sense in that context.
For example, if I create a fake video urging people to vote illegally, or at the wrong time, and I am sharing it through Google Drive with many many people seeing it, Google wants a policy prevent that sharing.
Otherwise either it's hands are tied or it's just doing arbitrary things. Which is far more authoritarian.
If a document is shared and accessed by thousands of people, it makes plausible sense that Google might not want to essentially be a hosting service if that content is leading to real-world harm.
...but this has not been made explicit enough for such a sensitive issue, with real speech and free expression concerns. (and there are real concerns as always about who decides what is misinformation)