The loudest and most opinionated people in the office space are stifling free speech

Debates among colleagues should lead to empathy and open-mindedness but the opposite is often true

It was a disaster for US software company Basecamp when its bosses wrote a blog post in 2021 unveiling a ban on talking politics at work as it led discussions into “dark places”.

About a third of the company’s staff resigned as a result, mirroring the reaction from some workers at cryptocurrency start-up Coinbase when it unveiled a similar ban a year earlier. These moves were too extreme.

Staff understandably felt like they were being silenced on important issues just to make life easier for HR.

Fast-forward three years and the issue is being discussed more than ever. Company bosses are watching passions fly in what is already proving to be a bruising election year on both sides of the Atlantic.

The war in Gaza has led to deepening tensions among employees. Google is now working on changes to its internal message board Memegen after discussions about the war in Gaza grew so tense that people felt they were being bullied. It is now hoping to “turn down the temperature” of the discussion by removing virtual thumbs-down memes which mean that unpopular messages quickly disappear from view, The New York Times reported last week.

The obvious argument is that people should be free to discuss what they want – in an ideal world a debate among colleagues with a different opinion should lead to more openmindedness and empathy. But in too many cases this isn’t happening.

As a result, marginalised employees can quickly feel intimidated. A Google insider tells me that some staff had asked for the changes to be made because they felt “bad” when their messages received so-called downvotes and then felt discouraged from contributing to discussions at all. The messaging forum suddenly felt like an unapproachable and competitive place, they said.

Instead of creating open debate, people can feel silenced when politics is discussed in the office.

Sam Altman, who leads Openai, said in January that he was concerned Muslim technology workers were afraid to speak out over the Israel-gaza conflict amid fears it could harm their careers. Mr Altman, who is Jewish, said he believed that “anti-semitism is a significant and growing problem in the world, and I see a lot of people in our industry sticking up for me, which I deeply appreciate. I see much less of that for Muslims”.

Voices on both sides feel oppressed in the workplace. In Silicon Valley, young adults facing rising antisemitism at work have started meeting up with other professionals to discuss how to navigate hostile colleagues.

Banning political chat at work in the way Basecamp attempted isn’t a smart idea, but there is something to be said for stopping the loud online world of faux outrage and misinformation from leaking into the workplace.

After American journalist Elizabeth Spiers received angry messages from strangers last year asking why she hadn’t shared her opinion on the situation in Israel and Gaza on Twitter (now X), she wrote a piece outlining why silence on social media is not complicity. The idea that “everyone needs to speak, all the time” is an unhealthy one, she said, reducing complicated and sensitive subjects into Tweet-length expressions of outrage.

“It discourages shutting up and listening and letting the voices that matter the most be heard over the din,” she wrote in The New York Times. “It implies it’s not OK to have any uncertainty about what’s going on or any kind of moral analysis that does not lend itself to presentation in a social media post. It does not leave time or space for people to process traumatic events in the sanctuary of their own minds or to gather more information before pronouncing a judgment.” It is a good point. Nobody should feel forced to take a black-orwhite stance on something they don’t really understand, in the same way that nobody should feel silenced. Now the pressure on social media users to voice an opinion, or find one quickly, is spreading into office life.

Sensing the tension, Tim Davie, the BBC’S director-general, urged staff last year to treat each other with humanity and be careful about their choice of language when discussing the

Israel-hamas conflict. In an email to employees sent in November, he urged his colleagues to “act with generosity and humanity” towards each other during a distressing time for “Jewish, Arab, and Muslim communities”. He urged staff to “look after each other”, saying that “no one should ever face any fear or prejudice in a workplace”.

A few months later, the BBC sacked an employee for sharing anti-semitic posts.

In a world which is becoming increasingly divisive, everyone could benefit from speaking less and listening more. That’s not to say that political talk at work is a mistake – companies can’t tell workers to pretend major geopolitical events aren’t happening. Nor is it to say that being vocal on social media is a negative. Despite all its faults, social media is a force for good when it comes to raising awareness on certain issues.

However, staff need to consider how a bit of restraint with colleagues during difficult conversations might mean a lot to those sitting near them who could feel marginalised, directly affected by the issues or unable to speak up. Being the loudest on the internet, or in the office, should never be done without thought.