Google is not amoral in that sense; it's an ideologically-driven organization consisting of people, led by leaders who are also people. Those people make moral judgments, and, contrary to the claims in the article, a great deal of Google's path has been shaped by those moral decisions, including the decision to engage in China. (I think they made the wrong decision there, but I might be wrong, and in any case the moral calculus figured quite explicitly in their discussions.)
You forgot one of the major parties to the organization--the shareholders, who are, as far as I understand economics, incapable for some reason of being "ideologically driven." The shareholders pushed for China. I'm not sure Google could have said no.
You may not be familiar with Google's unusual share class structure, but it insulates them from pressure from outside shareholders to a very unusual extent.
