>Why do they have to be directly named?

OP said:

>Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg ... are partly responsible for the reversal [of Roe v Wade].

I would wager that it's fair to say that Kaplan would've pushed for Kavanaugh whether he was employed by FB or someone else. Unless someone can show me where he did this with the instruction and/or support of Zuckerberg/Sandberg, I am reluctant to hold them "partly responsible" for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, despite my pre-existing misgivings towards both of them. Kaplan, on the other hand? Sure.

>One of the highest held positions in FB pushed for and advocated for political positions that directly impact workers.

Yup! On this we agree. But again, that's Kaplan we're talking about, not Zuckerberg/Sandberg.

>You could argue that his personal political beliefs have nothing to do with the company, but he serves as an advocate for conservative voices within FB. For better or worse, his political beliefs are a large part of Facebook and the other executives enable that. The executive team directly represents the company in a way that your average worker does not and for workers to not discuss things executives do that directly impact them is wrong.

Just because I am reluctant to toss blame around with abandon doesn't mean that I don't share this viewpoint.

You could argue all those things. The pre-existing policy that they are enforcing suggests that they came up with this ban at some point in the past. Perhaps during Trump-era nonsense. Which side were the execs on?

I don't actually think it matters--if you have100,000 Facebookers, you keep them from squabbling over politics in groups larger than 20 because it's good for productivity and retention. You don't fret about which employee side is winning.