> the response of the Chinese workforce seems rather paradoxical - criticising an accommodatung work environment, which, mind you, is only possible because of freedom of speech
You’re questioning, and implicitly criticizing, these workers for exercising their access to free speech, for complaining about an aspect of their employer’s position about their country of origin.
Such an implicit critique undermines the foundations on which free speech stands. Speech is free regardless of the benefits and privileges granted to those who would speak.
> Speech is free regardless of the benefits and privileges granted to those who would speak.
You're copiously misinterpreting my comment. Of course free speech is an inherent privilege, nay human right, that doesn't require granting from any entity/authority figure. I'm very much questioning the logic behind their angst against Zucks' opinions on China. If anything, the free flow of information, free speech without retaliation and the general upliftment by being at FB should convince them to argue FOR free speech in China. I was hoping they saw the clear correlation between freedoms, free-speech, etc as the foundation for equitable wealth creation and prosperity, which they very much have experienced at FB.
I'm guessing their reaction is more visceral/emotional than logical. Most people tend to love their motherland despite it's shortcomings.
Hm. I don’t think I misread or misinterpreted as much as your sparing comment leaves many lines to read between.
In any case, I my inference does not match your intended meaning and I appreciate your clarification.
Free speech should be an inherent right. I also LOVE the idea that such employees might use this as an opportunity to advocate for free speech in their hime countries.
I don’t however see such advocacy as a requirement to criticize Zuckerberg.
> You’re questioning, and implicitly criticizing, these workers for exercising their access to free speech, for complaining about an aspect of their employer’s position about their country of origin
Why is this relevant? By that definition, any time you criticize anything someone says you are criticizing them for using free speech.
There is a big difference between “I disagree with what you’re saying” and “you shouldn’t be allowed to say it”. As far as I can tell, he isn’t even hinting at the latter.
> There is a big difference between “I disagree with what you’re saying” and “you shouldn’t be allowed to say it”. As far as I can tell, he isn’t even hinting at the latter.
The GGP is not merely saying "I disagree with what you're saying" but rather "I disagree with what you're saying because you are well-compensated (and allowed to speak freely)." (The last clause is a bizarre objection, but it is present in the GGP comment.)
This is problematic because in the US, where Facebook is concerned, free speech is not granted only to the poorly-compensated but to all residents. So pointing out how well-compensated the employees are as a way of criticizing them undermines their access to free speech. It is an attempt to silence them because they enjoy privileges such as good compensation and the ability to speak freely.
And to be clear: criticizing Chinese Facebook employees for complaining about the CEO's position to their country of origin because they are well-paid is an attempt to nullify their points because they are well-paid (and allowed to speak freely). The criticism doesn't address the root of the objection but instead attacks the employees (i.e. ad hominem).
You’re questioning, and implicitly criticizing, these workers for exercising their access to free speech, for complaining about an aspect of their employer’s position about their country of origin.
Such an implicit critique undermines the foundations on which free speech stands. Speech is free regardless of the benefits and privileges granted to those who would speak.