The only evidence given that the firing was due to pressure from Google is Lynn's statement (which seems to just be his assumption, because he's a critic of Goo

The only evidence given that the firing was due to pressure from Google is Lynn's statement (which seems to just be his assumption, because he's a critic of Google). There are at least two official statements that it was in fact not Google's pressure. I don't think Google is an any more moral actor than any other corporation, but why would they do something like this, which has basically nothing but downside to them? Despite Lynn's fantasies, I doubt that Google is particularly worried about his voice of criticism, nor stupid enough to think this would silence him. Shouldn't the "disgruntled employee dismissed for cause" theory, which has at least as much evidence as the "lonely voice of criticism silenced by corporate behemoth", be at least entertained?