I'd like to object on the grounds that I never claimed that I agreed with anyone's definition of the world 'evil'
And yet, you felt that this story indicated that Google was willing to re-define it. How did you mean that, exactly?
As with Youtube, however, Google - which, I'd like to stress, is not a philanthropic organization and cannot guarantee its own benevolence
You're wrong, but also imprecise. "Benevolence" is as poorly defined a word as "evil," but you're wrong about the general idea that, as a for-profit, public corporation (keep in mind that it's the "public" bit that's important, here, not just the for-profit part), Google has no choice but to pursue the most profitable line of action, regardless of moral ruminations by the founders.
In fact, the grounds upon which many companies are sued for not maximizing shareholder value is the idea that they advertise a certain business model, and then failed to execute on it in a way that a reasonable investor would expect. The courts have, as I'm sure you're aware, supported this notion that reasonable investors can expect companies to ignore their executives personal moral values and instead pursue profits at all costs...
But Google did something unique, here. Their S1 has a really interesting section that explains to the SEC and their investors that they will NOT take actions that violate their core principle of "do no evil" and they spell out quite clearly that this means that their stock may never be worth what it might otherwise be worth to their shareholders, and they go on to outline how and why.
I believe that this is a brilliant way to end-run around the whole problem. Of course, it's no guarantee that they won't decide to behave immorally or define morality differently from anyone else, but to say that Google will be compelled to do whatever it takes to make more money for their shareholders is flat-out wrong.
I would say that Google's actual goal in creating its grand online library to extend their drive to index as much information as possible
Partially this is true, and is a stated goal. But, I think you're short-selling the desire that Google's executives have, here. They've worked very hard to establish the ability to increase access to information, and not just for the reasons you cite above (their Citizen projects and Data Liberation projects make this clear).
which in turn maximizes the value of their advertising services, increasing profits.
Of course. They drive their business through advertising, and most good things that they've tried to do has, I'm sure, been pitched in terms of "here's how we can do this thing, and here's how we drive that through advertising revenue."
Much of what Google does has no immediate return, of course (their Open Source donations in code, money and other labor, for example), but much of it does for sure. I just don't think that couching your good deeds in terms of good business negates their value or the kudos a company should receive for doing them.