> It is inevitable that the best "product" wins. These people know it
How? By what mechanism? An opinion isn't a product.
Take ISIS as an example that's less controversial (here): do you believe that people willing to act as suicide bombers can be convinced, by rational argument alone, to change their views?
And considering there are still extreme right-wing extremists, adopting the symbols of their predecessors from 70 years+ ago: how long does this market take to do its magic?
Yes, I'm using the most extreme example, because obviously people shouldn't lose their livelihood for, say, complaining about the weather. But note that there's a fail-safe in this mechanism: to have a reasonable expectation that doxxing someone will get them fired, the speech in question must be outside the Overton-window of what society deems acceptable.
> If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?
For that memo: it would seem extreme, yes–and I believe the reason for the firing wasn't meant to penalise his opinion, but an attempt to quell the damage created inside and outside of Google by his ham-fisted treatment of a sensible topic.
But for neo-nazis: yes, we are better. Because they are motivated by hate, and seek to harm innocent people ("Jews will not replace us"). Whereas their opponents only seek to stop them. I, for example, frequently attend counterprotests when neonazis try to march through the streets of my city. But I'm not Antifa or a communist or Stalinist. When they stop, I will not attend some other rally calling for the death of bankers, or people with glasses.
Also:
> Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives.
Is somewhat in conflict with "but if you tell their employer, you're destroying their lifes!"
Of course words can harm. Otherwise they're either completely useless, or have only positive impacts. In that case we should connect a source of randomness with a text-to-speech synthesiser, and watch the world magically improve.
How? By what mechanism? An opinion isn't a product.
Take ISIS as an example that's less controversial (here): do you believe that people willing to act as suicide bombers can be convinced, by rational argument alone, to change their views?
And considering there are still extreme right-wing extremists, adopting the symbols of their predecessors from 70 years+ ago: how long does this market take to do its magic?
Yes, I'm using the most extreme example, because obviously people shouldn't lose their livelihood for, say, complaining about the weather. But note that there's a fail-safe in this mechanism: to have a reasonable expectation that doxxing someone will get them fired, the speech in question must be outside the Overton-window of what society deems acceptable.
> If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?
For that memo: it would seem extreme, yes–and I believe the reason for the firing wasn't meant to penalise his opinion, but an attempt to quell the damage created inside and outside of Google by his ham-fisted treatment of a sensible topic.
But for neo-nazis: yes, we are better. Because they are motivated by hate, and seek to harm innocent people ("Jews will not replace us"). Whereas their opponents only seek to stop them. I, for example, frequently attend counterprotests when neonazis try to march through the streets of my city. But I'm not Antifa or a communist or Stalinist. When they stop, I will not attend some other rally calling for the death of bankers, or people with glasses.
Also:
> Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives.
Is somewhat in conflict with "but if you tell their employer, you're destroying their lifes!"
Of course words can harm. Otherwise they're either completely useless, or have only positive impacts. In that case we should connect a source of randomness with a text-to-speech synthesiser, and watch the world magically improve.