Do you have a source for any of that?

I worked at Google from 2011 to 2017, and the licensing policy was always pretty clear that the GPL was broadly OK for server-side but the AGPL was not. They're one of the few corporate entities I know of that are willing to use GPLv3 code, and when I went through their process for open-sourcing personal projects they had no problem with my use of the GPL.

You might be confusing Google with Apple, which was historically willing to use GPLv2 code but is strongly opposed to GPLv3.

  > the so-called "viral clause" (if any part of the software is GPL/AGPL,
  > the rest of the software it's part of must also be GPL/AGPL)

This is not an accurate summary of the GPL, or of software licensing in general. There is no requirement that all parts of some piece of software use the same license. As one famous example, the Linux kernel (largely GPLv2) also contains code covered by the MIT and BSD licenses.

I'm also bothered by how you use "GPL/AGPL" repeatedly. The GPL is a standard copyright license, the AGPL is a EULA, and there's good reasons to distinguish them.