> 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).
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.