Google allows (allowed?) relatively free socialization on internal mailing lists, and there are serious labor law issues with saying "you can talk about anything you'd like as long as it's not company policies or politically controversial".

most companies don't have to say anything like that. the absence of active encouragement is usually enough. the "default" is not to discuss sensitive topics over company email.

Google specifically wanted to encourage open discussion of things like company plans and priorities, which at many other companies are sensitive topics.

It was going to end in tears one way or another.

Yea and he was essentially complaining about google brainwashing

No, he was complaining about how the diversity team wasn't scientific enough, and pointed out that it from a certain viewpoint it doesn't makes sense. But failed to simply account for what Google as an entity (the CEO, the shareholders, the board of directors, the upper management, the vocal minorities, etc) wanted. And that was simply diversity even at the cost of spending a lot of money and making some sub-optimal decisions.

> And that was simply diversity even at the cost of spending a lot of money and making some sub-optimal decisions.

That's an interesting take considering how little success Google has had in making their tech workforce more gender diverse.

One cynical view might be that the entire thing is a PR exercise, designed to make it appear that Google cares about gender diversity. For the cost of a small amount of money to write some press releases, and no real changes to their hiring policies, they get some good press and stave off criticism.

Damore's memo threatened this from both sides: it makes it look (or was made to look by adversarial press coverage) like Google is hostile to women, and it also threatens to call attention to the diversity Potemkin village set up by HR.