Morality aside: maintaining a fabrication is also not difficult for some people. You just need to make sure to think your lies through, and maintain two levels of backup explanations in case someone does poke their way through. Weaving details through primary and backup explanations can be difficult, but that's where practice comes in.
That's not to say that teaching kids that "lying is bad" isn't a noble goal, but you're going to have a really tough time convincing them when they can clearly see the benefits of it in their daily life (an extra cookie when Mom's out of the room, No detention because the dog ate their homework).
Perhaps a more realistic goal is to channel their learning into teaching the difference between lies.
But I think the whole argument is a bit of a "Red Herring" or is mostly irrelevant. The whole argument reeks of flame-war induced fallacies.
I figure that something happened like the following.
- Google enforces mail policies.
- kid cries.
- parents broken hearted, outraged, determined to share outrage
- article posted, misleading, overly emotional linkbait headline included
- internet response: "who cares, just lie"
- parent, embarrassed, defensive & still outraged, formulates weak knee-jerk rebuttal.
- internet response: "flame on"
Or they actually believe it. Which is a bit stupid, but hey, stupid people exist too. I don't think they're dumb, just caught up in the emotions that stir whenever you witness your own child crying.
However, I think you were voted down because it's difficult to find the line between a child making wise judgments within context and assuming they can lie in every scenario for their own benefit. That's a tricky one to walk, so it's better to play it safe until you're dead sure they can rationalize about the "real world." This is likely to be higher than age 10 for many kids.