Google Memo Guy

[August1991]

Fire? Not Fire?

Link: 

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/07/google-fires-memo-author/

Edited August 9, 2017 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Promote him.

[August1991]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Promote him.

b_c, you're so anti-pc - that your're pc!

[bush_cheney2004]

Julian Assange has offered him a job, decrying Google's censorship:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fired-google-memo-writer-draws-161657273.html

Edited August 9, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Julian Assange has offered him a job, decrying Google's censorship:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/fired-google-memo-writer-draws-161657273.html

I saw that offer too, and I agree with Mark Steyn, and your 1st Amendment. Any sustainable State/institution must make clear to individuals/people that they are free to say what they believe.

IMHO, there are "crazy" people who believe that Martians conspired to kill Kennedy in Dallas. Yet IMHO,  I would far prefer a society in which such people are free to speak than a State in which such words are forbidden.

Edited August 9, 2017 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

It's the same disease that has infected university campuses, and it is ironic that media democratization (e.g. Google) has led to stifling censorship of contrary views.

The Smothers Brothers are braver than Google.

 

[August1991]

44 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

It's the same disease that has infected university campuses, and it is ironic that media democratization (e.g. Google) has led to stifling censorship of contrary views.

The Smothers Brothers are braver than Google.

 

Democratization? Google is a monopoly!

Google's monopoly position allows this organisation to waste its energies/profits/rent in such useless pursuits.

=====

Many people see the rent, and are seeking it now. They observe how Google managers are dissipating it. Despite its claim, Google is no Oxford/Harvard - and its main office is not a campus.

yahoo and aol? RCA?  

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

Democratization? Google is a monopoly!

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

Fire? Not Fire?

 

The two most prevalent fallacies about this incident:

1. Freedom of speech means employees are free to send emails that are circulated throughout the company, and the public, disagreeing with company policy.

2. This individual was against diversity.  ( He says right in the email that he supports it.)

[Altai]

LoL, so freedom of speech fails again. I dont know what he said but I thought he was free to say whatever he want. 

Now some guys are going to say "because its a private company". Does not matter what it is, they are against freedom of speech when it does not fit with their perspectives.  Many "private" companies are doing such things, so many companies are against freedom of speech, for example we often witness newspapers kicks their journalists when they tell something does not fit with the newspaper's interests. The same newspapers wont hesitate to prepare "freedom of speech" articles in the future 

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, Altai said:

. Does not matter what it is, they are against freedom of speech when it does not fit with their perspectives.  

Freedom of speech means that the government can't reasonably limit speech.  Try to insult your boss via email and you'll learn what firing-due-to-insubordination means.

[Altai]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Freedom of speech means that the government can't reasonably limit speech.  Try to insult your boss via email and you'll learn what firing-due-to-insubordination means.

Why do you expect your state to allow you to speak freely against them while you personally dont believe in freedom of speech ? In this case, your state can claim right to jail your "due to insubordination".

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, Altai said:

Why do you expect your state to allow you to speak freely against them while you personally dont believe in freedom of speech ? In this case, your state can claim right to jail your "due to insubordination".

Not according to the definition, no.  The relationship between the state and citizens, and the one between employees and employers is legally different.  You can't just use words like insubordination to change how free speech is defined.

[Altai]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not according to the definition, no.  The relationship between the state and citizens, and the one between employees and employers is legally different.  You can't just use words like insubordination to change how free speech is defined.

Firing someone who insults is also not appropriate with the meaning of the word "insubordination". Someones could insult their boss and still could keep doing their job without a disruption. 

You didnt reply my question. Why would someone does not allow employees to speak freely demands to speak freely ? 

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, they could keep their job or they could be terminated.  That's how it works in most North American jurisdictions I believe.

To answer the question: refer to the definition of free speech.  The government should not be able to control speech it doesn't like.  Otherwise, criticism is stifled.  But if I Insult my boss, or insult you in your home, I can be fired or asked to leave.

[Altai]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, they could keep their job or they could be terminated.  That's how it works in most North American jurisdictions I believe.

To answer the question: refer to the definition of free speech.  The government should not be able to control speech it doesn't like.  Otherwise, criticism is stifled.  But if I Insult my boss, or insult you in your home, I can be fired or asked to leave.

Okay I see what you mean but you dont understand or try to understand what I mean. Yes I would not allow someone to insult me in my home because I dont believe that insult is a part of freedom of speech. But someone who thinks that insult is also a part of freedom of speech fires employees for insulting. Is not it hypocrisy ? Because he thinks that people should be able to express himself, because he thinks that critism has a positive affect on development and improve of the jobs. Then why he is firing employees ? 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Altai

[Michael Hardner]

No, it's not hypocrisy since the situation is different in each case.

I don't know what you mean because your language is vague.

"Firing someone who insults... Is not appropriate". Well, it's legal.  Maybe you mean "not always necessary".  I don't know.  If you use more specific language it may be more clear what you are trying to say.

[Altai]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, it's not hypocrisy since the situation is different in each case.

I don't know what you mean because your language is vague.

"Firing someone who insults... Is not appropriate". Well, it's legal.  Maybe you mean "not always necessary".  I don't know.  If you use more specific language it may be more clear what you are trying to say.

Okay I will make it more simple. Why we are not allowed to speak freely (insult) in this forum ? I think everyone here supports freedom of speech. 

[Michael Hardner]

Why ask me?  I don't make or enforce rules around here.

[Altai]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why ask me?  I don't make or enforce rules around here.

You are a mod here. So you accept being a part of this forum. You accept to act in accordance with these rules. You accept to restrict people's freedom but you also want your state not to restricted your freedom.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not moderating this forum.  We are all part of it, and therefore accept the rules.

As I already stated freedom of expression means that the government can't suppress reasonable speech.

Just as you can kick me out of your house, the forum owner can kick you out for any reason.

Yes, I accept different rules for private spaces than for society on the whole.

[Altai]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I am not moderating this forum.  We are all part of it, and therefore accept the rules.

As I already stated freedom of expression means that the government can't suppress reasonable speech.

Just as you can kick me out of your house, the forum owner can kick you out for any reason.

Yes, I accept different rules for private spaces than for society on the whole.

Yes this is the point. In fact people dont believe in freedom of speech and they dont allow it in their private environment. If they were believe in it, they would act the same in all the aspects of their life. Then they want to speak freely against the state or other people because they claim they have right to speak freely. Complate hypocrisy.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think so.  If the environments were the same then it would be.

We have seen how governments who don't allow criticism end up.

[Omni]

Like Turkey who jails more journalist than any other country. So much for that freedom of speech idea.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-06-28/turkey-jails-more-journalists-any-other-nation-those-detention-are-all-terrorists

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The two most prevalent fallacies about this incident:

1. Freedom of speech means employees are free to send emails that are circulated throughout the company, and the public, disagreeing with company policy.

2. This individual was against diversity.  ( He says right in the email that he supports it.)

In fact, the memo was on an employee discussion forum meant for the exchange of ideas about Google's workplace and policies.

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

In fact, the memo was on an employee discussion forum meant for the exchange of ideas about Google's workplace and policies.

I have heard it described as an email or memo.  If that's the case Google has set up a fakery... Ie. A forum that is not really a forum.  Seems pretty stupid that they would not anticipate this event.