[JLO64]

Personally, I'd rather not have a company I work for police my social media and political activities just so that they fit with what the company desires. That would make me quit as I value a separation between my personal and work activities.

That said, the fact that the person involved is the founder of this company (not a regular employee) does change things though. I don't know anything about the politics involved, but (with the exception of recent American executives) I would imagine you would want the people who run your company to be more neutral as to prevent controversy (or at least do so quietly).

[panarky]

I don't want the founders and operators of my free-expression tool to be neutral.

I want them to be strongly biased in favor of free expression.

But they take my money and use it restrict how people dress, how they pray, what customs they are allowed to follow, what they teach their kids.

The agenda they support is anti-free-expression, and that's worse than neutral.

[streetfighter64]

> or at least do so quietly

No, I think it's pretty good that they don't hide it. Customers should be well informed what their money goes to, and if the profits go to funding politics the customers disagree with they should be able to make an informed decision about that.