I think the difference here is that the research may have shown that Google was unintentionally breaking the law, and after Google realized this, they used an existing review process in a way they don't normally use it to block publication.

The possibly shady part is that they could be suppressing evidence that they broke the law, but, like your said, they can decide how to run their own business. I'm not even sure if the researcher would be a whistleblower if they didn't intend to report something illegal.

To makes matters worse, in this case at least, the law or laws they may be breaking were established to protect a class of people the researcher is a member of.

> If you expect tolerance of radicals and debate, look to the universities.

Universities used to tolerate radicals and debate. But going by the copious media reports of the last few years, that doesn't seem to be how they operate any more.

Yeah, but then they should get called out for wanting the good PR of having an AI ethics team, but without the headaches of having their poor ethical standards exposed.

You can't have it both ways.

Companies are given a life under the premise they provide a social good. They get a charter from the government. They are what's called a legal fiction. Government should demand AI ethics instead of letting the companies self regulate. (after all, most AI is developed with gov funds)