am1988

It's the obvious implication from stating that women are biologically prone to being inferior engineers, and that they should end diversity hiring programs.

Maybe he should have thought about that before he posted it. The author of the medium article is right that the manifesto implies that a lot of coworkers are less capable.

It's a grey area though.

> If you don't see any other way to deal with OP's views than described in this belittling rant

If that's how you read it then I feel like you missed the entire point.

> This is a non-statement. Replace 'engineering' with science, medicine, finance, customer service, politics, retail, programming etc., and it will sound as correct.

Again, I'm feeling like you missed the point.

> Google engineer

Oh, so basically scripture then.

> Does that judgement come from you

yes, and it applies to me.

> Obviously false.

Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny.

That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.

> Don't pretend there are no other funding models.

I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

In the US if you don't like your internet provider you can shut up and keep paying because the government helped them get a localized monopoly. Google can swing regulators from "anti-trust" to "it's all good they said they would fix it". Lobbyists write legislation.

The level of corporate control in the US is disturbingly high. Ultimately they are weaker than the federal government.

> Would we still use the "private companies" can do whatever they want argument?

At some point I would think you would run into anti-discrimination laws, but short of that sure do what you want.

I'm free to say to those users "hey, come post here my lgbt brothers/sisters/anything in between. Come post here liberals who are pissed off about the actions of facebook/google".

Whereas if I said something against the government of china they would just toss me in prison or have me killed.

Except that people can just leave facebook and go use something else if they don't like it.

Don't get me wrong, I am deeply disturbed by the level on control facebook (and google) exhibit over news, information, the internet. But it's a fundamentally different thing then the government doing it.

If you don't like it then use a different site. Corporate entities have zero obligation to allow you to use their platform for whatever you want.

The press still publishes the information and the government generally doesn't get to censor it.

The government is free to try and stop leaks. That's not the same thing as censorship.

The level of secrecy a government operates under is a massive issue, but it's not the same one.

> this kind of behavior is very par for the course.

That doesn't mean we should normalize it.

Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be.

Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.