2 ms·
> When was the last time your car insurance company imposed a political opinion on you? https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=F09 https://www.op
by scarmig 9y ago
> When was the last time your car insurance company imposed a political opinion on you?
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=F09 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=F09
The idea that any apolitical company exists is fanciful. Simply giving employees the right to political opinions is hardly a reason to boycott the company; it's a reason to support it.
That said, Google's tolerance-but-only-for-tolerable-opinions is itself problematic.
- gnarbarian 9y agoOK, but google's approach is more akin to your car insurance company denying your business because they disagree with your political opinion bumper sticker and then refusing to tell you why. Their position in the video market is such that they don't need to compete for content providers and that is a problem.
- smsm42 9y agoLobbying is different. Democracy is for finding how to define common policy, lobbying can be (though not always is) a legitimate part of this. This is different, for example, from refusing to do business with people holding certain political opinion or actively trying to silence them. > Google's tolerance-but-only-for-tolerable-opinions It's not even that. It's "tolerance only for opinion which nobody out of the list of groups that are allowed to object finds objectionable". The groups of course are defined by Google HR politics. So if you are animal rights activist and group in power dislikes you - you're not tolerated and even people in Google that want to hear you can't. If this is "tolerance" then what is intolerance, I wonder?