3 ms·

Google (at least in this case) wasn't acting in their capacity as a power-broker over wider internet speech and discourse. They were acting in their capacity a

Google (at least in this case) wasn't acting in their capacity as a power-broker over wider internet speech and discourse. They were acting in their capacity as an employer. Their power over society as an employer is much more limited and doesn't concern me. If you want to have a conversation over whether twitter and Google as companies have enough power that their actions should be judged in a 1A context that's fine. We can have that conversation. But it's not the one that's being had in this thread or this discussion.

stcredzero 9y ago
The fact that so many of Google's employees could demonstrate the degree of ideological hysteria which they demonstrated greatly concerns me, and has a direct bearing on the 1A context.
- tptacek 9y ago
  What 1A context? 1A says absolutely nothing whatsoever about your right to work for Google, or for Hobby Lobby.
- ncallaway 9y ago
  It does not, because there's no 1A issue as the first amendment does not grant you any protections from your employer. Now, as I said before, if you want to have a discussion about whether Twitter and Google and other modern media companies should have some 1A responsibilities in their role as gatekeepers to online speech, that's a discussion that's entirely separate† from Twitter and Google's responsibilities to their employees. †I would still argue that, despite their relative power over online discussions, Twitter and Google as private entities are not bound by the first amendment in any capacity—nor should they be. Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    It does not, because there's no 1A issue as the first amendment does not grant you any protections from your employer. I was clearly referring to the greater issue with regards to Google's general power in our culture and what the attitude within Google which was revealed in this event might mean. Not only did you state that you did not want to have that discussion, but then you just tried to shove words in my mouth as if I were trying to have your different discussion and advocating an unsupportable point. Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox. Private entities shouldn't be allowed to knock down everyone else's soapbox, which is precisely what Google's market power allows them to more or less do.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Then aren't you confusing your argument (and your readers) by referring to the First Amendment, which has literally no bearing on this situation?

stcredzero 9y ago

The fact that so many of Google's employees could demonstrate the degree of ideological hysteria which they demonstrated greatly concerns me, and has a direct bearing on the 1A context.

tptacek 9y ago
What 1A context? 1A says absolutely nothing whatsoever about your right to work for Google, or for Hobby Lobby.
ncallaway 9y ago
It does not, because there's no 1A issue as the first amendment does not grant you any protections from your employer. Now, as I said before, if you want to have a discussion about whether Twitter and Google and other modern media companies should have some 1A responsibilities in their role as gatekeepers to online speech, that's a discussion that's entirely separate† from Twitter and Google's responsibilities to their employees. †I would still argue that, despite their relative power over online discussions, Twitter and Google as private entities are not bound by the first amendment in any capacity—nor should they be. Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  It does not, because there's no 1A issue as the first amendment does not grant you any protections from your employer. I was clearly referring to the greater issue with regards to Google's general power in our culture and what the attitude within Google which was revealed in this event might mean. Not only did you state that you did not want to have that discussion, but then you just tried to shove words in my mouth as if I were trying to have your different discussion and advocating an unsupportable point. Privates entities aren't required to provide you a soapbox. Private entities shouldn't be allowed to knock down everyone else's soapbox, which is precisely what Google's market power allows them to more or less do.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Then aren't you confusing your argument (and your readers) by referring to the First Amendment, which has literally no bearing on this situation?