5 ms·

Limiting free speech is never a good idea. Not for any reason. Google is picking a decent and fair path by allowing anything except anti-trust. Honestly, go to

Limiting free speech is never a good idea. Not for any reason. Google is picking a decent and fair path by allowing anything except anti-trust. Honestly, go to Google where you can be authentic and human about things.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> Honestly, go to Google where you can be authentic and human about things. With respect, I think James Damore (may have) found that he couldn't be authentic at Google.
- patmorgan23 6y ago
  And the thing is every thing James said was correct. And he advocated for policies that would help everyone and eliminate the disparate impact on minorities by doing things like flex time or letting people move to part time for a little bit after a major life event (like having a child).
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    So many scholars, lawyers, and employment commissions disagree with the assertion that everything Damore said was correct that I don't think it's even worth covering this ground again.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  James bumped up against the fact that regardless of what Google wants in terms of a free exchange of ideas internally, it's an American company and retaining staff under American employment law and the law of the state of California, among other states. Once it became clear that what he said could be interpreted as creating a hostile work environment, the company's hands were basically tied on having to let him go. The alternative would have been much worse for the bottom line. And the subsequent lawsuits and dismissals have made it basically clear that he had no legal leg to stand on.
jmpman 6y ago
Would Google be happy if one of their employee made a statement which triggered a Title VII civil rights lawsuit? Is support of BLM a political statement or one based on race? If it’s a political statement, then opposing it, isn’t a potential Title VII violation as political preference isn’t a protected class? But if it’s a racial issue, could someone make a case the opposing it is a Title VII violation? I have no idea what the answer is, and wouldn’t want my employees engaged in such a discussion as it could potentially come back as a lawsuit. In that same context, I wouldn’t want James Damore writing his memo. Equally, the reason he was writing his memo was possibly because there were other conversations happening around race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If those conversations were encouraging the advancement of the disadvantaged members of one of those classes, you could argue that is a violation of Title VII.
- heimatau 6y ago
  > Would Google be happy if one of their employee made a statement... Would the worker be happy if their boss tells them how to speak, what to speak, and what they can't speak about? Honestly, Googlers work very hard. This isn't as big of an issue as people are making it out to be. How do you want foster freedom and lessen control/restrictions? Seriously. The idea that we should limit speech...is a very dangerous path to even think about. All thoughtful points are moot compared to how those policies can be abused and destroy an entire civilization. Nazi Germany wasn't too long ago. China restricted a doctor's speech about sounding the alarm on Covid19 (so it's more recent too). If society (a collection of individuals) continue to think that it's "okay" to restrict someone's opinions (for any justification), they make society weaker. Truth wins out. Not authoritarianism. But...back to my main point of responding to you. Googler (and other tech companies) aren't a DC think tank. They're building and shipping things. They work hard. And those that are highly skilled, want the autonomy in work. If you restrict that autonomy, you restrict your talent pool of workers. Maybe you think that's a good choice (Coinbase would agree) but...in the long-term, IMHO, freedom is more powerful than control.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    > Truth wins out. I think that's a great philosophy for structuring a democratic republic form of government, but trying to apply that philosophy universally to all circumstances and all human interaction leaves it a giant untested hypothesis. It would be nice if truth always won out. That would be cool. Insufficient data to say for sure that it does.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago

> Honestly, go to Google where you can be authentic and human about things. With respect, I think James Damore (may have) found that he couldn't be authentic at Google.

patmorgan23 6y ago
And the thing is every thing James said was correct. And he advocated for policies that would help everyone and eliminate the disparate impact on minorities by doing things like flex time or letting people move to part time for a little bit after a major life event (like having a child).
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  So many scholars, lawyers, and employment commissions disagree with the assertion that everything Damore said was correct that I don't think it's even worth covering this ground again.
shadowgovt 6y ago
James bumped up against the fact that regardless of what Google wants in terms of a free exchange of ideas internally, it's an American company and retaining staff under American employment law and the law of the state of California, among other states. Once it became clear that what he said could be interpreted as creating a hostile work environment, the company's hands were basically tied on having to let him go. The alternative would have been much worse for the bottom line. And the subsequent lawsuits and dismissals have made it basically clear that he had no legal leg to stand on.

jmpman 6y ago

Would Google be happy if one of their employee made a statement which triggered a Title VII civil rights lawsuit? Is support of BLM a political statement or one based on race? If it’s a political statement, then opposing it, isn’t a potential Title VII violation as political preference isn’t a protected class? But if it’s a racial issue, could someone make a case the opposing it is a Title VII violation? I have no idea what the answer is, and wouldn’t want my employees engaged in such a discussion as it could potentially come back as a lawsuit. In that same context, I wouldn’t want James Damore writing his memo. Equally, the reason he was writing his memo was possibly because there were other conversations happening around race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If those conversations were encouraging the advancement of the disadvantaged members of one of those classes, you could argue that is a violation of Title VII.

heimatau 6y ago
> Would Google be happy if one of their employee made a statement... Would the worker be happy if their boss tells them how to speak, what to speak, and what they can't speak about? Honestly, Googlers work very hard. This isn't as big of an issue as people are making it out to be. How do you want foster freedom and lessen control/restrictions? Seriously. The idea that we should limit speech...is a very dangerous path to even think about. All thoughtful points are moot compared to how those policies can be abused and destroy an entire civilization. Nazi Germany wasn't too long ago. China restricted a doctor's speech about sounding the alarm on Covid19 (so it's more recent too). If society (a collection of individuals) continue to think that it's "okay" to restrict someone's opinions (for any justification), they make society weaker. Truth wins out. Not authoritarianism. But...back to my main point of responding to you. Googler (and other tech companies) aren't a DC think tank. They're building and shipping things. They work hard. And those that are highly skilled, want the autonomy in work. If you restrict that autonomy, you restrict your talent pool of workers. Maybe you think that's a good choice (Coinbase would agree) but...in the long-term, IMHO, freedom is more powerful than control.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  > Truth wins out. I think that's a great philosophy for structuring a democratic republic form of government, but trying to apply that philosophy universally to all circumstances and all human interaction leaves it a giant untested hypothesis. It would be nice if truth always won out. That would be cool. Insufficient data to say for sure that it does.