YouTube Places Dangerous Target on Platform’s Pro-Gun Users

A newly updated policy on firearms on the popular video sharing platform is sure to backfire.

YouTube, a subsidiary of Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc., announced a new policy that’ll adversely affect channels for those who hold pro-Second Amendment views. These changes will impact the many individuals, companies, and advocacy groups who rely on YouTube to reach their large audiences.

Per Bloomberg, YouTube announced it’ll ban videos that promote the sale of firearms or bump stocks. Additionally, it’ll ban videos instructing people on how to assemble firearms. These changes are set to go into effect in April. They offered this revision to their firearms policy:

YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that:

Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items. These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds).

Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.

Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation had this to say about the move:

“We suspect it will be interpreted to block much more content than the stated goal of firearms and certain accessory sales,” the foundation said in a statement. “We see the real potential for the blocking of educational content that serves instructional, skill-building and even safety purposes. Much like Facebook, YouTube now acts as a virtual public square. The exercise of what amounts to censorship, then, can legitimately be viewed as the stifling of commercial free speech.”

This change in policy even led one channel to suggest they’ll move to PornHub, which is a bit drastic if you ask me. Don’t resort to desperate measures, guys.

Undoubtedly, YouTube continues to land itself in hot water with this embrace of targeted censorship against those aren’t liberal or anti-gun. The platform has also censored videos from PragerU, which led them to file suit against Googlelast fall. In January 2017, YouTube removed a channel belonging to Cornell University law professor and Legal Insurrection founder William Jacobson. The egregious examples of censorship against conservatives are innumerable. While YouTube is a private company, them taking the wrong side on the gun debate will cost them countless users.

Prior to these swift changes, some so-called conservative YouTube stars were raking in big money from the platform. A change to its monetization rules has led to many in conservative and firearms circles to find other avenues to rake in money. Demonetization has specifically targeted conservative and independent video makers.

Will a viable alternative to YouTube arise? Time will tell. There are some variants to choose from, but a serious competitor to the popular video sharing site has yet to emerge. Perhaps a legitimate competitor can arise amidst this problem—one that doesn’t lead gun enthusiasts to PornHub.

Is “Big Tech” too big to fail? Some are arguing breaking up these companies will ameliorate these problems. (Like many out there, I’m torn but am more skeptical about this and corresponding government regulation being tossed around.) More realistically, competition is the best antidote to companies engaging in divisive corporate advocacy.

PragerU Demonstrates The Proper Way To Take On The Left

For more than a year, a strange thing has been happening to Prager University’s YouTube videos. These popular videos convey a conservative message on topics from Israel to health care to gender issues.

Dozens of its videos have been flagged as “restricted” on YouTube.

Now some conservatives (and liberals alike) have been calling for companies like Google, Facebook, and YouTube to be regulated as utilities, or public media. That means applying all kinds of fairness and equal access tests to ensure they aren’t biased against particular groups. That’s exactly the wrong approach.

On YouTube, PragerU has over a million subscribers, and hundreds of videos. “Restricted” mode is used by public libraries, educations institutions and many parents to filter videos that are inappropriate for younger people. But that’s exactly for whom the videos are made.

Now PragerU has filed suit, alleging discrimination, against YouTube and its parent, Google (part of the Alphabet Inc. family). They are seeking to force YouTube to unrestrict 37 videos. That’s the right way to handle this.

From The College Fix:

“It’s David versus Goliath,” PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said in an interview Tuesday with The College Fix.

“This was a very difficult decision for us. We are not as wealthy and big and powerful as Google,” Streit said. “We are not only doing this for PragerU, we are really doing this for America, and even the world.”

PragerU is accusing YouTube of illegal discrimination against them for their conservative perspective. They cite examples of videos from left-leaning producers that are also targeted at young people, which do not bear any restrictions. YouTube, under pressure from liberals, even reversed restrictions on controversial LGBT videos.

“The lawsuit is about discrimination,” Streit said. “We just want to be treated the way other channels and other producers are treated.”

The restrictions do not appear to be against the videos themselves–if other users repost a PragerU video it remains unrestricted–but against PragerU’s account.

Though Google is certainly a Goliath, PragerU has a pretty talented legal team behind its suit.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson’s law firm is representing PragerU, with Alan Dershowitz advising.

“We have a strong case and we have an amazing counsel,” Streit told The College Fix.

If PragerU wins, it could free up hundreds of videos that have similarly been marked with the “restricted” flag. Christian academic and author Dr. Michael Brown has battled Google over content restrictions.

Google also “demonetized” hundreds of thousands of videos by conservatives dealing with certain topics, especially God. Brown had “the vast majority of our 900+ videos” demonetized. That’s not part of the lawsuit, but it does demonstrate Google’s sensitivity to left-wing advertisers who don’t want their names associated with conservative content.

We don’t need more regulation. We don’t need to allow the government to write rules for markets that in ten years will have evolved to new companies and new challenges. This is not the phone system from 100 years ago. Twenty years ago, Google was a raw startup, while Twitter and Facebook didn’t even exist. AOL was king then, and now AOL is no more.

In twenty years, we don’t know what companies and technologies we’ll be dealing with. But what we do know is that government cannot adapt as fast as business.

Finally, we also know that any regulations the federal government writes end up getting challenged in federal court. And federal court challenges typically–eventually–end up at the Supreme Court. The massive growth of federal regulations and control has already given nine black-robed justices almost dictatorial power (Erick said Justice Kennedy has crowned himself king–I’m paraphrasing).

Do we really want to give them more power over us?

At the same time, we really need Google to stop its blatant discrimination. The proper place for that argument is in civil court. That’s where PragerU has chosen to take its fight. Kudos to them and let’s hope they win.

How We Will Put 1,000 Conservative Journalists to Work, and Google Will Pay For It

Google wants to help fund 1,000 journalists in local newsrooms.

If this is you: a person of high net worth who’s willing to give Google a run for their money, now is a good time to act.

Partnering with an organization Report For America (RFA), Google wants to build a national service project around journalism. They’re even afraid of the term: “That might make some journalists uncomfortable – the idea of service and patriotism, said co-founder Charles Sennott, founder and CEO of the GroundTruth Project.”

“But at its most fundamental, local journalism is about protecting democracy, he said.”

Here’s how RFA will work: On one end, emerging journalists will apply to be part of RFA. On the other, newsrooms will apply for a journalist. RFA will pay 50 percent of that journalist’s salary, with the newsroom paying 25 percent and local donors paying the other 25 percent. That reporter will work in the local newsroom for a year, with the opportunity to renew.

Of course there’s a catch.

RFA is a partnership between Google News Labs and the Groundtruth Project. The Groundtruth Project’s mission is (from its website):

The GroundTruth Project is a non-profit media organization dedicated to supporting a new generation of international correspondents and documentary filmmakers to go out in the world to produce social justice journalism that enlightens and informs,

It’s not just any journalism. It’s “social justice journalism.”

Proper pedigree

I would guess that diversity, inclusivity, open-mindedness, and all the other hallmarks of “protecting democracy” will be the norm for RFA. So, that being the case, I would assume they won’t ask about views on abortion, or Christianity, or global warming, or evolution, or home schooling, or political affiliations, or if the emerging journalist seeking employment owns a pickup truck.

RFA also gets support, and its reporters will get training, from the Center for Investigative Journalism, the Lenfest Institute for Journalism, the Solutions Journalism network and the Knight Foundation (which funds my job covering local news at Poynter).

The executive director and CEO of the Lenfest Institute for Journalism is Jim Friedlich. Like many journalists, he hasn’t given directly to candidates, but in 2016 he did give $1,776 to a group called “We’ve Got Your Back.” In turn that group gave to groups like “Art Not War” that also received cash from, Priorities USA Action, et al.

I suppose I could go down the list of all the executives and leadership of all those groups hunting for someone who isn’t a far-left liberal, and I might find one tucked away in the cobwebs, just one word away from a ball gag and duct tape. But that would take a lot of time, and I think the results would be what I expected.

Game the system

Not to worry, though. Every system can be gamed. What we need to do is find several thousand emerging journalists to apply through RFA, and media newsrooms to employ them. The more the merrier.

If Google wants a thousand journalists, let’s give them ten thousand.

At least some of these journalists might make it through the pedigree check. My guess is the majority will be sent away, having failed the “character” element of selection criteria.

But that in itself is a story. Because if a Christian baker can be made to bake a gay wedding cake and deliver it to the ceremony, performed by a Christian pastor at a Christian chapel, all impressed against their wills by the power of the state, then surely Google and RFA can be made to accept a conservative journalist into their program.


Or possibly, the bad publicity might force them to shut it down.

What publicity? Because the existing liberal media will bury the story.

Well. Maybe that approach won’t work.

Do it ourselves

Conservative journalism is suffering. Even the main power centers of conservative media: talk radio, are experiencing a bit of a dip from the division over President Trump.

It’s not that the audience isn’t there, it’s just that friendly fire has taken a toll.

This will not be forever, but I suspect that liberals see an opening here, leading to Google’s effort to stuff the minor leagues, so to speak, and load the benches for the next 20 years.

This need not happen. If Google and RFA won’t take conservatives, then we must find deep pockets in conservative circles who will fund our own effort.

If this is you: a person of high net worth who’s willing to give Google a run for their money, now is a good time to act. I can think of many worthy recipients (starting with this website) that struggle to pay emerging conservative journalists.

Now is the time to fight the battle for the next generation of journalists. Doing it in 20 years isn’t an option.

Combating Fake News: 4 Strategies to Separate Fact from Fiction


This fake-media toolkit was originally published by Stand Up Republic, and has been reprinted by permission. 

The digital revolution has fundamentally changed the way we produce and consume news. Technology has brought about unmistakable progress on many fronts, but it has also introduced new opportunities for exploitation and attack.

It’s fair to say that disinformation has long challenged our ability to discern truth in media. But the 2016 presidential election exposed to the public a new strain of the virus, and it’s one that requires increased vigilance to remedy.

Today’s abundance of “news” invites us to indulge our inherent prejudices on demand, even when facts disprove our feelings. Anonymous social media profiles (including bots) enable the wildest ideas to spread across information networks, even appearing on the @POTUS account at times.

Fake news stories are sometimes funny. They are often benign. But they can also have serious and terrible consequences.

As our society adapts to this new landscape — one the President aggravates by labeling any media that challenges him as “the enemy” or “fake news” — foreign adversaries look to spread their own propaganda. Their disinformation campaigns exploit our free and open media, sowing chaos and eroding democracy in the process.

When consuming media from any source, and in particular online, one must navigate our digital world carefully. Know what to look for, and help your family and friends avoid spreading misinformation too.

Here are four strategies to help you identify fake news.


First, look at the URL: have you ever heard of before? If you haven’t, be wary of the site’s contents.

The Internet’s open and accessible nature means virtually anyone can publish an official-looking website. Someone with basic web skills can have a site up and running in a matter of minutes, with almost no cost.

The producers of fake news have political and financial motives. During the 2016 presidential race, for example, the Denver Guardian — an entirely fake news site — generated between $10,000 and $30,000 a month in ad revenue.

Of course, sites that mix real journalism with distorted (or blatantly false) information blur the line between fact and fiction. Here’s a list of the worst offenders.


Did the article you just read shock you because it’s inconsistent with known facts? Did it seem designed to play on your emotions? If a claim or story seems outrageous, don’t take it at face value. It’s possibly twisted to confirm your worst fears and suspicions, or simply made up altogether.

Why do so many people fall for this trap? Because fake news purveyors — including advertisers — seek clicks and shares of their content, and they know appealing to raw emotion elicits a greater response in our brains.

Bottom line: take a moment to analyze what you just read and ask yourself if it seems too “out there” to be true. If the answer is yes, proceed with caution before internalizing, clicking or sharing.

3. CONSULT GOOGLE (or maybe Bing?)

When something happens, news organizations race to publish. Every bureau chief wants to be the first to post or to secure the next exclusive. So when important national events happen, multiple sources cover it.

Different outlets may, of course, offer their particular analysis of an issue. But at the end of the day, the root facts of an issue — its essential truth — will shine through.

As a rule of thumb, check to see if other outlets are talking about a given subject. If at least three different, well-known publications have reported on the same topic, there’s a good chance its core facts are legitimate.

Example: Fox News, MSNBC and the New York Times each published an article about President Trump and Steve Bannon around August 15, 2017. While each source frames the story differently, it’s probably safe to conclude that this is real news.


It’s true — media outlets on both sides of the aisle present the news with bias. But, as with Tip #3, we can overcome this by challenging opposing viewpoints.

Where do you gather your news, generally speaking? If it’s largely through TV, consider reading a newspaper. If you typically read Fox News articles online, consider watching CNN.

Too often, we choose to ignore ideas that compete with our preconceived notions. By varying our sources and consuming those with which we disagree, we are more likely to get to the truth than if we only participate in the partisan echo chamber that too often reaffirms false narratives.


This link should be bookmarked for future reference!

The Dangers of Googlethink

As a child of the 80s, the definitive historical event of my young life was the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger.  To this day, I can remember exactly the circumstances when I heard the news:  I was a senior in high school, sitting in Ms. Figley’s anatomy and physiology class, when Mr. Davis–a revered teacher who had been at the school for what seemed like forever–opened the door and told all of us, “The space shuttle just blew up.”  My classmates were stunned.  Nobody knew what to say.  In reality, there really wasn’t anything to say.  As American kids, we had simply taken for granted the amazing technology that lifted human beings into space.  To us, the liftoffs had almost become routine.  Nobody had ever considered the possibility of catastrophic failure–and yet it had happened, and when it did every single one of us was shaken to the core.

Years later, I found out that the Challenger disaster was anything but unpredictable–that NASA managers had, in fact, been  aware of the defects in engineering that caused one of the solid rocket boosters to malfunction.  They also knew the dangers of launching in extremely cold weather, but gave the go-ahead even though temperatures on the pad had dipped below 22 degrees.  So why did seven astronauts have to die?  An investigation into the disaster revealed the answer:  NASA’s management culture had become so insulated, an atmosphere of groupthink had taken hold in the decision-making process.  Because there had never been a major failure before, it was simply assumed there could never be one.  And with all of the checks and backups in place, it was also assumed that that failure of one system would be compensated for by another.  In short, everybody thought that everybody else knew what they were doing–and nobody wanted to be the boat rocker who caused launch delays by raising concerns about how rubber rings got brittle when the weather was really cold.

NASA learned its lesson and changed its practices, but just temporarily.  Seventeen years later, while re-entering Earth’s atmosphere, the space shuttle Columbia was destroyed when hot gases penetrated the silica tiles on the leading edge of the port side wing, causing a massive structural failure that tore the ship apart.  The subsequent investigation determined that the tiles had been damaged during launch, when a chunk of insulating foam broke away from the big external fuel tank and struck the wing at high speed.  Again, the investigation revealed that NASA was fully aware of the dangers of foam strikes, and that flight engineers knew that the wing might have sustained damage grave enough to put the ship in danger–but they chose not to alert the crew, or have them inspect the wing.  Groupthink had taken hold yet again, and seven more lives were lost as a result.

So how does all this relate to Google?  Well, the company is currently dealing with a disaster of its own–one that should have been entirely predictable, and yet took them completely by surprise.  It all started innocuously enough, with a memo posted on an internal message board by James Damore, one of Google’s engineers.  In it, Damore pointed out flaws in the company’s efforts to recruit more women for technical positions, stating that these programs were themselves discriminatory and not very effective.  Damore’s real sin, however, was in pointing out that perhaps  biological differences could account for some of the disparity in the number of women who pursue technical careers.  He also linked to scientific research that supported his point, and said that while he also values diversity, he thought that Google would be more successful in attracting female employees if it took into account some of these innate characteristics.  The company’s leftist culture, however, made it next to impossible to even discuss such matters–a problem that Damore said was holding Google back from achieving its goals.

For that, he was terminated.

Now, Google is weathering a firestorm of criticism for retaliating against an employee for raising concerns in a private forum about the company’s employment practices.  Moreso, the incident has also exposed that–in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on diversity efforts–the company still employs far more men than women.  This, in turn, has led to the possibility that over 60 women will file a class-action lawsuit against Google for sexist hiring practices.  Damore, meanwhile, is contemplating a lawsuit of his own, stating that his rights to voice concerns about workplace conditions under California law have been violated.

Oh, and Damore’s former colleagues at Google?  In a Blind poll, half of them think he shouldn’t have been fired.

What a mess.  One, by the way, entirely of Google’s own making.  It could have been avoided, though, if there was just one person in management who could have looked and Damore’s memo and realized that he was raising valid points–that Google really does have a monolithic culture, and that this attitude could be preventing them from seeing potential solutions to its problems.  Unfortunately, because of self-selection, all the higher-ups at Google think exactly the same way.  Not only that, their groupthink is ruthlessly enforced–so there was nobody around to stop them from making such a foolish, self-destructive move.

There’s a lesson in there for Google, assuming their management is willing to learn it.

Race Pimp Kids Grow Up To Be Race Pimp Admissions Officers

One feature of Donald Trump’s rallies has always been his music selection. He always ends with The Rolling Stones “You can’t always get what you want.” It’s really the perfect counterweight to all the things liberals stand for.

Liberals believe in social engineering. They believe in starting with an outcome, and engineering a plan to make that outcome become true. They believe you can always get what you want. Especially in education, opportunity, and economic status, liberals believe that we can guarantee that diversity of skin color, racial heritage, ancestry, and parentage can be plotted in a standard deviation curve, and with the right tinkering, these results can be made to happen.

They’ve been tinkering for 50 years. We’ve yet to see ourselves get any closer to the planned outcomes, although we do have schools seeking a return to segregation and persecution based on race.

The problem here is that kids who grow up on race identity become adults who live their lives according to race identity. The college kid who got in because he checked the right boxes becomes the admissions officer responsible for ensuring the results fit the curve.

Though they try, they fail–in schools, and in business.

Google’s diversity fail

James Damore has a Harvard Ph.D. in biology. He wrote about physical, biological differences between men and women, by way of explaining why men fill more  technical positions at Google. He was fired under the guise of advancing “damaging stereotypes.” They paid Damore to know more about these things than Google executives know, and then fired him when he used that knowledge against them.

Google spent $265 million on diversity, and for their efforts, they have zero Latino executives, a 0 percent gain in the number of female employees from 2013 to 2016 (29 percent), and a 5 percent gain in women in leadership positions (from 8 to 13 percent). That’s dismal if you’re programming to a bell curve. Damore wrote about the bankruptcy of that approach, and the tyranny of forcing all hires to believe in it, and they canned him.

Rod Dreher wrote about liberals and their obsession with privilege, bias and skews.

I would not want my children working for Google. I would not want my sons to be subject to that kind of ritual defamation and professional ruin for expressing the “wrong” opinions. And I would not want my daughter to have the kind of power over her coworkers that women do in the identity-liberal culture of Google. I want all my kids to work for employers that care about justice in the workplace, but do so within a context that — as James Damore suggested in his memo — treats employees as individuals.

What’s a “new Jew” worth?

Liberals have become race pimps in their search for a Holy Grail of diversity–some secret formula that counteracts the pernicious effects of privilege. The privilege of skin color; of growing up in a two-parent household; of having parents who value education and learning; of being part of a culture that values family and achievement.

Daniel Golden became so blissfully unaware of his own racism that he wrote in a book about Asians and affirmative action (The Price of Admission, 2006), that he stumbled in a ProPublica piece into anti-white, anti-Semitism.

In my book, I described Asian Americans as “the new Jews.” Like Jews before the 1960s, whose Ivy League enrollment was restricted by quotas, Asian Americans are overrepresented at selective colleges compared with their U.S. population, but are shortchanged relative to their academic performance.

In the paragraph immediately preceding that, he skewered Jared Kushner, an orthodox Jew, as a “poster boy” for the practice of displacing “more deserving candidates from other backgrounds, including Asian Americans and middle-class whites, without achieving the goals of affirmative action, such as diversity and redressing historical discrimination.”

I strain to contain my eyes lest they roll out of their sockets at such prideful claimed omniscience. Apparently, an “old Jew” is worth less than a “new Jew.”

The best way to redress historical discrimination is to give the discriminated class a way up without placing them in direct competition with those who are already at the pinnacle of the educational system in elite schools. Didn’t Golden learn anything at all from Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants who came to America with nothing, faced discrimination of all kinds, and through generational change finally achieved a result?

In other words: it’s okay to learn to be a plumber, or machinist, or welder if your father was a fruit peddler. Not every child of a blue-collar worker can (or should) go to Yale.

You can’t always get what you want.

And now, even high schools are getting into the race pimp act. A Virginia school sent this letter to parents:

“Through our collective work, advanced classes such as AP and Honors will have proportional representation,” read the letter. “Proportional representation is 40% White, 35% Hispanic, 12% African American, 10% mixed race.”

This is the racial outcome bell curve on stilts. Why would you want to place a lower achieving Hispanic or African American in a class to compete with higher achieving kids? So they can fail and feel less worthy? Or so the entire class can become a little less “advanced”  and hold back the kids who got there by achieving standards?

Outcomes cannot be engineered, just like Google can’t force their workforce to look like the racial distribution of Santa Clara County and still be Google. No matter how much money they throw at the problem, the dice will still roll the same.

It takes generations for these changes to happen, and only when values, diversity of thought, family support systems, and playing for the long game take precedence over the shortcuts liberals are obsessed with taking.

Dead fish stink

Dreher quoted Mark Lilla’s new book The Once and Future Liberal (August 15 release):

The identity liberals’ approach to fishing is to remain on shore, yelling at the fish about the historical wrongs visited on them by the sea, and the need for aquatic life to renounce its privilege. All in the hope that the fish will collectively confess their sins and swim to shore to be netted. If that is your approach to fishing, you had better become a vegan.

That’s a kind analogy to fishing. In reality, race identity liberals would drain the lake, kill all the fish, count the number of crappie, bass, and catfish, then scoop the dead fish in proportion to their distribution into their ice chest.

But we all know that dead fish stink, and aren’t good to eat. So the liberals go to Whole Foods and buy fish, and claim they caught it. And if you point out the Whole Foods receipt to them in the Google lunchroom, you’re fired.

This post is cross-posted at The New Americana.

Fired Google Memo Author To Explore Legal Action Against Company

Google engineer James Damore, who penned the now-viral memo on Google’s intolerance of conservative viewpoints, has been fired from his job and plans to explore legal action against the company. He was allegedly fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

Damore recommended that tech hubs like Google: 1) stop demoralizing diversity, 2) stop alienating conservatives, 3) to confront Google’s bias, 4) to “stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races,” 5) to “have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs,” 6) to also focus on “psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity,” 7) to de-emphasize empathy, 8) to prioritize intention, 9) to embrace the science of human nature, and 10) “reconsider  making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.”

Here’s the gist of his memo:

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

And here’s the “contentious” portion about women in tech. (Warning: it’s not offensive)

Women, on average, have more:

  • Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
  • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
  • Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
  • This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
  • Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

In response to Damore’s memo, Google’s vice president of diversity, Danielle Brown, sent a memo asserting the engineer’s essay “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender”. But that will not help the case against Google, who is currently the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor for allegedly paying women less than men– a claim the company has since denied.

Experts say Damore doesn’t have much of a case against his former employer, but that remains to be seen. As I wrote on Facebook this morning, it’s imperative for more conservatives and libertarians to enter the tech realm and offer some creative disruption in that industry. It’s needed now more than ever.

Fascist Google Has The Right To Be a Tyrant, But Bake That Cake, Bigot!

So Google fired the employee who wrote a ten-page memorandum about workplace diversity.

In a memo to employees, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the employee who penned a controversial memo that claimed that women had biological issues that prevented them from being as successful as men in tech had violated its Code of Conduct, and that the post had crossed “the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

Okay. Note that Pichai didn’t say the memo-writer, identified by Bloomberg as James Demore, specifically claimed these traits make anyone “less suited.” He simply pointed out some things that “suggest” those conclusions, which the reader must draw. He wrote it by way of explanation of why there are less women in certain jobs.

Demore’s central point is that Google values viewpoint ideological lockstep over other forms of diversity. How you think, and your worldview, are more valuable to the company, which depends enormously on collaboration, than who you are.

In this, Demore is absolutely right. And Google has the perfect right to insist on this, as long as they don’t cross certain lines of religious discrimination. Demore’s own firing proves his own points. Disagree with fundamental go-along, get-alongs, and you find yourself on the wrong side of the Code of Conduct.

This is as it should be. Yonatan Zunger, a former Googler, wrote in response that he could not “in good conscience” assign an employee who wrote a memo like Demore’s to work with anyone in the group.

You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment,” he wrote. He also said in a email, “Could you imagine having to work with someone who had just publicly questioned your basic competency to do your job?”

Google created its workplace, and by that statement, Zunger is correct. Nobody wants to work with a pariah who doesn’t get with the program.

Don’t get me wrong here: Google is being tyrannical to the point of fascist in its treatment of employees and viewpoint discrimination.

But Google has the right to be that way, for the sake of liberty, wouldn’t you agree?

Google is not the government (arguably, it rivals a government in the amount of data it has on you and me, down to the keystroke, or the temperature in my bedroom). Protections against viewpoint discrimination and free speech among hired employees don’t apply to every employer in America, or rather they shouldn’t.

Otherwise, we might have Christian organizations forced to hire atheists, or a major newsmagazine writing that “atheists aren’t the problem, Christian intolerance is the problem.” We might have Christian bakers forced to supply cakes to same-sex weddings against their consciences. We might have restaurants forced to hire those who don’t agree with the core principles guiding their business.

Because Google–and the left–claims a perfect right to police its own purity, but haughtily and pridefully the purity they seek is really poison that denies this right to everyone but themselves.

Welcome to the new work world. Choose a side.