Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they single out those specific uses then, if you consider express prohibitions are necessary?
To make it look, on cursory reading, like the policy is something you are comfortable to agree to. Legal theatre. Also because those specific uses are mentioned in existing law and/or have been otherwise successfully defended. It gives their lawyers as many explicit tools as possible, before they need to argue around the implicit ones enabled by their policies & agreements being deliberately more vague elsewhere. The…
Interesting! A rather cynical approach. Although preferable to naivety on my part - I'd expect a court to hold the list exhaustive if challenged.