>> If you think that it's not true (that silence is not complicit), then shouldn't you attempt to explain that?

You aren't entitled to a conversation.

Wanting to be silent at work and thinking that silence is being complicit are both compatible beliefs.

Work isn't your entire life, you can be loud outside of work and yet still be silent at work. Think of the phrase, "Don't shit where you eat".

It’s absolutely relevant. Whether it’s a public open source project or a fight over sports in a pub, there is a line you cannot cross if the other person is a co-worker. Context is everything.

You’re purposefully using language to make it seem like not a big deal. It was clearly more aggressive than simply asking.

And, again, context for where you are “saying they didn’t do it” matters. If it’s an internal company board vs Twitter or github matters.

> Intentionally not making a statement is already political. Consider that next time you think of Recoil.

This part right here, pal. Asking is proposing something, and politely accepting whatever answer is given back.

What he said was closer to coercing and appealing to community shaming, which is evidently not professional.

That is not coercion or appealing to community shaming. Those are both terms that have meanings. Telling people to consider the actions of the developers of a software project is not coercion or an appeal to community shaming.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. No one's rights were violated. Apparently you have a different definition of what constitutes appropriate public speech for employees than Facebook does, but so what? You're not his employer. This guy said something and got fired for it. That is the system working how everyone wants it to.

Whether Facebook has the legal right to fire him is not what is being discussed.

What are we discussing? Whether Facebook was justified in firing him? By definition if they didn't fire him for a prohibited reason, it was justified, right? Is your argument that it was "unfair" to fire him for an act of speech?

Mentioning a private conversation on Twitter that didn’t go your way is 100% aggressive. There is no purpose other than to drum up harassment for the person you mentioned.

The purpose is to inform interested people of the reason for the action (or lack thereof). That is the purpose of communication. Beyond that, you are only speculating about secret intentions, with absolutely no evidence.

There is no legitimate reason to inform the public of someone else’s private conversations in this scenario. It’s not the public’s business to begin with.

I’m not speculating about secret intentions. It is the only reason to call out a private conversation that didn’t go your way.

The right to speak is inseparable from the right to not speak. One doesn't have to explain their decision.

A workplace is not supposed to be a debating society.