[0] Despite me being very pro free-speech by U.K. standards, the responses I get here demonstrate that I’m still a long way from the degree of free speech that American culture embodies.

How companies orient themselves politically is extremely important. How they choose to align themselves with the other happenings & governings of the world is one of the most defining ways the world is shaped.

I feel like CEOs probably SHOULD express political views. They should be subject to scrutiny, should have the authority of their wealth & power made visible, and reciprocally, be questioned.

In the UK: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/be-data-aware/political...

"You have an absolute right under the Data Protection Act to object to marketing from any organisation and the processing of your information for direct purposes. However, a candidate, political party or referendum campaigner does have a right to send a Freepost mailing, as mentioned above."

And under GDPR it's all about consent: https://www.superoffice.com/blog/gdpr-marketing/

"Data permission is about how you manage email opt-ins –people who request to receive promotional material from you. You can’t assume that they want to be contacted. In the future, they need to express consent in a ‘freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous’ way, which is reinforced by a ‘clear affirmative action’."

Specifically, nothing in Expensify's EULA or settings allows me to opt out of the CEO's political views.

Sauce for the goose (large corporations) is sauce for the gander (SMEs).

Luckily in the US we have the first amendment to ensures that expressing your opinion in public like this is never “plain wrong”. There may always be negative consequences depending the the reception, but it’s never illegal.

I'm not sure how I feel about this Expensify situation. I don't immediately see that there is a line that was crossed, that it was "plain wrong". It seems convenient, perhaps, to insist on moral silence from the world, but I'm not sure that this (imo absolutely tiny as can be) inconvenience is wrong, or something we shouldn't do? Why do you think it is?

You ask "Am I missing something?!" but I have taken a big strong bold position of denial, of refusal, & I don't understand what or why you feel that way? Especially so strongly?

> I think this company is going to be in lot of trouble for forcing thier view on all of their customers and dropping emails to their offical mailboxes

Oh I hope some customers try to react a ruckus. Some people are going to be loud, going to be obnoxious, going to trumpet loudly that they demand their safe, neutral spaces.

Alas, those people live on planet earth, with other people, and short of going off into the woods, I don't think they should nor will get the emotional isolation they seem to be demanding of the world from it. They have been thrown into the world, & they have choices about what kind of person they want to be as they meet the world.

I don't think this is "forcing their views". This is sharing, this is communication. It's a human activity. It's why the tribes of humanity rose above the animals, because we shared, because we communicated, because we created sense & values where there were none. This is modest, this is reasonable. This is small.

> This is total invasion of privacy.

It absolutely is not in any way at all an invasion of privacy. You have your private world to yourself still. That you have had to glimpse some of the real world is a different matter.