Here's the thing. The outrage is justified, but the reason for the ambiguous terms is there too.

Imagine you are the big boss at your smoke producing company. You are one of the best smoke producers in the world and your factories cannot be beat at their efficiency.

Now you hear that one of your employees, a star employee actually, committed misconducts. You investigate and get enough evidence to become convinced that it happened, but you do not have enough to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Now you don't have enough evidence to prove the full details of what happened or what didn't, some stories take it further, others take it lesser, but clearly you believe that something bad happened, even if you can't quite say exactly how bad.

The company, and anyone reporting on it, would be at high risk by throwing a very specific accusation, because if it just so happens that you accused of a bit more than what happened, you've opened yourself up to lawsuits.

So either way, legally speaking you have to use certain words and avoid others in public at least, just to cover your ass. But still there's enough that you can fire the employee, no questions asked. There's enough that you are legally covered to fire him with no benefits and no consequences. Except that if you break contract you could loose a lot, there's side benefits and agreements that would be broken and could be used against you. You can strong-arm the employee but you still have to keep some of their benefits around.

The other thing is that the victim would rather it not be known. They have good reasons. If this came out it would be the defining trait of their career, and they would always leave under the shadow of the abuse they received. They don't want the social pressure and controversy that would come of making this public, they'd rather just let this slide. The thing is that victims are marked just as badly as the perpetrator of the attack, but perpetrator generally have a lot more power to handle the consequences of this mark than the victim, this difference in power was the reason the whole thing started in the first place.

So what do you do? Do you go against the victims wishes, drag the asshole's name through the mud but bring the victim through the whole ordeal as well? Or do you let a silent resolution were the perpetrator leaves happen, helping the victim, but not doing enough?

Be outraged. The fundamental differences in power on our society that allow this to happen means that there was no winning scenario for the victim, who by definition never chose this. It's a good thing that this becomes a problem for Google, it pushes them to set better preventive systems. It's a good thing that this comes out as a conversation as a systemic problem (and not just an individual case) as it helps us focus on changing the fundamental dynamics instead of talking about individuals. It also is good that this stories come out even if they happened years ago: victims may want to accuse, but they should have the power to choose when it's best for them; their stories though help the victims who right now can't talk about what they are going through, and helps them be taken more seriously.