And also no one with strong conservative beliefs can really survive or rise to prominence there.

If I brought my whole self to my job in Houston it would not go smoothly.

> they protest their own company when they feel it is not having properly

You're right, but I don't understand that perspective.

If my company is doing something that I think is morally wrong, I'm going to be finding employment elsewhere and telling them why. I might even speak out about it... after I leave.

If we're doing something that I think it's great but doesn't justify my quitting, then I'm going to be speaking up internally about it. Going public with a grievance against your employer just strikes me as being counter-productive - you're risking being fired, you're damaging your future prospects for advancement there, and you're potentially damaging the entity to which you've tied your financial future.

The way I see it, when I work for a company I'm part of their public face. Even though I may not (certainly don't, actually) represent the company, my actions and statements still influence people's impression of the brand. If I'm upset about something enough that I'm willing to damage the company's brand to speak out about it, then I'm upset enough that I don't want to be providing material support to them by continuing to work there.

I think the calculus for most people is: This job is paying me a lot and I don't want to leave it, and I do think that this company can be a net force for good in this world (easier to believe at Google than at Facebook). But I don't want it to do bad things, and if I damage the brand publicly, the company will still survive, but will think twice about doing something like this in the future since they won't be able to just contain it internally.

The people who are just purely about the money won't care enough to protest at all. I think the protesters' intentions are in the right place.

I agree that their intentions are good. I guess what I'm really saying is that I can't relate to them. I understand it intellectually, I just can't quite see things from that perspective.

> I do think that this company can be a net force for good in this world (easier to believe at Google than at Facebook). But I don't want it to do bad things, and if I damage the brand publicly, the company will still survive, but will think twice about doing something like this in the future since they won't be able to just contain it internally.

That's the thing, at least for me - if you believe the company is not currently being a net force for good in the world, then I'd be contributing to something that is a net force for evil. Even if I believed that could be changed in the future, I couldn't do that. It's the difference between utilitarianism and deontology.

> People in Silicon Valley

This has got to be an over generalisation, surely?

People in Silicon Valley are highly unlikely to be a homogenous whole.

And given what we know about Gell-Mann Amnesia, it seems likely to me the media’s portrayal of the situation is, at best, amiss, and, at worst, intentionally deceptive.

Probably that a vocal minority generate a kerfuffle, and a huge majority keep mum.

Happy to be proven wrong.

Women are shorter than men; some women are 7 feet tall.

Not sure I follow you?

A statement about differences between two populations can be true without being true for every member of each population.