... no ... the essence of free speech is free association and dissociation with people, ideas, and narratives. There should be no compulsion or "made to contin

... no ... the essence of free speech is free association and dissociation with people, ideas, and narratives. There should be no compulsion or "made to continue giving" if they disagree. In this aspect, google would be well within its rights to discontinue funding speech it no longer agreed with. Its within its rights to attempt to influence a narrative. But there are optics associated with this, and people who may be (rightfully or wrongfully) suspicious of its motives, who would take such actions as confirmation of their own pet theories. Without reflecting on how common a pattern this is, if this is what happened, then it happened. And its not wrong for google to ask for tighter conformity to its preferred narrative. Its not wrong for the think tank to offer this tighter conformity. It just looks ... well ... bad. Google acting in their own self interest is rational. Doesn't mean its "good" or "bad" in a wider context, but it is rational.