There are certainly individuals with a problematic approach to team politics at Google (I have some stories). However I think this comment may put too much weight on the individuals without counting the overhead of ordinary, good faith conmunication. The more people you have working on something and trying to provide good ideas, identify and avert possible problems, and derive the right priorities the more stakeholders you have. The more stakeholders, the more process and communication overhead you will end up with. So even if you could screen out all the "political" and "unproductive" people you'd still be moving slowly in an organization with >100k employees.
Part of the problem is that actually... you don't want more people weighing in on the same priorities. If you hire someone either they should do something new, in which case they shouldn't really be weighing in on something existing as much as possible (certainly not have decision making power) or they should accelerate something existing, in which case they aren't a new stakeholder. If a team depends on your team that's 1 stakeholder. if that's 50 people, fine, but it's still 1 stakeholder. If 50 of them turn up to your "meeting with stakeholders" ask them which 1 is going to represent them. If 1 of them can't represent the other 50, ask them to leave and come back when they have a functioning structure, or fire 49 of htem, whichever is easiest.
In this scenario the team of 50 still needs to sort out what the one person is going to ask for at the stakeholder meeting and that probably requires additional communication within that team of 50, so even though it's contained within that team it contributed to the overall glaciosity of the company when it comes to getting things done.
