| It's worth pointing out that nowhere in her note does she say "Google is evil." In fact, she doesn't even use the word 'evil'. The only place where an entity's being evil has been mentioned is in these strawman comments. The issue is not a board member spreading around the opinion that a sponsor "is evil." The issue is whether it's alright to forbid any criticism of a sponsor's actions by board members (or by management, or other high level / prominent figures). If you choose to argue against, for example, me (since you responded to me), please understand the position. It is not that Google or anyone at all is evil. It's that no one's actions can be beyond criticism in a healthy society (or a healthy business, or a healthy relationship, etc). Further, it is especially dangerous when people like founders, politicians, board members, etc can't express opinions of the actions of other prominent figures. When that is the case, the only people who can complain are those people whose voices won't be listened to. How does that make society better? The position I, at least, am arguing for is that it is a socially irresponsible policy to force board members to express uniform approval of all actions taken by a sponsor. Expressing disapproval of a company's actions is far from saying the company is evil, or that you're too good to cooperate with the company, etc. Please avoid straw man arguments if you want to have useful discussions. |
Are you really nitpicking about "evil" vs "doing bad things"?
And everybody can say whatever they want, and criticize whoever they want. But companies are not obliged to keep people on the payroll who use their position to make the same company look bad. The whole assumption is absurd.
Board members forbidding whatever is not the issue at all. The job of the board members is to keep the business afloat and prevent harm from coming to it. Bosses give their employees instructions all the time.