It actually is. With Google being sued, if you start talking to a coworker and then say “let’s talk about this <on a none work recorded communication channel>, you may very well be questioned about what you wanted to talk about.

The government is forcing Google to retain all internal messaging communications.

Your libertarian take disregards that Google is only answerable to its shareholders and uses money as a primary motivator while the government is answerable to the people it governs and has public good as its primary motivator.

It’s not libertarianism. It’s a strong distrust of government power because I see what it does to minorities and how the “other” party will abuse it to suppress speech.

We see it on the state level where companies are afraid to speak out against Desantis because of retaliation.

I define the “other” party as “whichever one you disagree with”. I’m not trying to get into a right vs left argument.

The difference is that the government is not accountable to the majority either between gerrymandering, the electoral college, etc.

For instance, no matter how you feel about abortion, every time a referendum comes up for a vote by the public to restrict it - it’s always defeated even in conservative states yet the legislators go out of their way to work around the people’s will.

The same is true about legalized weed in conservative states or expanding Medicaid.

I can much easier not fall under the influence of Google than the government.

The government is the only force that has a “monopoly on violence”.

A powerful government can do much more harm than an adTech company.

As far as the government having the “public good as a motivator”, are we talking about the same government? The one that goes out of its way not to be answerable to people? The one that funds the “War on Drugs”, “civil forfeiture”, “eminent domain” to take property to give it to another business, etc?

The government has public good as its mandate. It makes mistakes because people make mistakes. It has the avenues available to correct those mistakes.

Google has profit and return for shareholders as its mandate. Anything it does towards that end is not a mistake and will not be corrected.

Well it can be “mandated” all it wants to, it has history of not happening. It wasn’t a “mistake” that the Florida governor (I live in Orlando) went out of its way to punish a corporation because it disagreed with a law.

Nor is it a “mistake” that the government seizes people’s property through civil forfeiture without a trial or that the government is actively fighting the will of the majority of the population.

Again, Google doesn’t have the power to do anything but serve ads. The government has the court system, a police department with military weapons, etc.

Some entity has to have those powers. Just because you don't like those in power in your state doesn't mean that regulating businesses is bad. You are taking an extreme position on something unrelated to your grievance.

No government has to have the power to punish corporations for speaking out against a policy or to regulate a company because they think they aren’t getting the coverage they deserve.

> if you start talking to a coworker and then say “let’s talk about this <on a none work recorded communication channel>, you may very well be questioned about what you wanted to talk about

Sure? This is how investigations work? There is no automatic assumption of guilt, which is what you said.

I’m sceptical of government overreach. But asking what was discussed in a meeting is incredibly standard investigative fare.

> government is forcing Google to retain all internal messaging communications

This is wrong. It’s forcing them inasmuch as my asking what you had for lunch forces] you to wear a wire.

> Sure? This is how investigations work? There is no automatic assumption of guilt, which is what you said.

I know I would hate to have been questioned about why I wanted to take a conversation out of my corporate channel when I was trying to have an after work “get together” with a cute coworker over a decade ago (that cute coworker is now my wife).

> I’m sceptical of government overreach. But asking what was discussed in a meeting is incredibly standard investigative fare.

It’s not just what was discussed, the government is assuming any time that you ask a coworker to “call you” that they are going to question you.

I know I would never talk to anyone in the government without my own lawyer - and that would cost money.

> I would hate to have been questioned about why I wanted to take a conversation out of my corporate channel

Okay? That doesn’t make the line of questioning illegitimate. I, too, dislike being questioned about anything by anyone.

> the government is assuming any time that you ask a coworker to “call you” that they are going to question you

Yes. They will also pull your call records and ask you what was discussed. Again, this is super normal. What, would you like to block investigators from asking what was discussed at meetings?

> I would never talk to anyone in the government without my own lawyer

You’re complaining about the government’s general right to investigate? You know that before these records you would still be questioned, right?