"Authentic intolerance" made me laugh and there's some truth to it.

The tolerance paradox comes up a lot, but I don't think it's that hard to decode, really. Nobody has universal "tolerance" -- everyone has things they consider intolerable if they have values at all. Characterizing someone as intolerant is essentially a somewhat pejorative way of saying that you've found a boundary value for them and you don't think it's drawn in the right place because it trespasses on some liberty you think you or someone else should have. How defensible that is depends partly on the strength of the case for the value and partly on whether any observing jurors share your temperament.

And I think tolerance happens on different axes. For some people, tolerance means allowing space for all kinds in society. For some it means maximal ability to live as you choose. For some it means a free expression of ideas.

Whatever you call people who value one or more of these things (conservative, liberal, progressive), if someone trammels in action or expression on any of those values, it's not terribly surprising they might face some hostility rather than conversational/social tolerance because they're challenging a value of tolerance.

When conservatives accuse left-leaners of intolerance, what I usually observe is that a conservative has forwarded some sort of idea under which space for all kinds in society or certain bands of acceptable behavior are limited, and then they're surprised that they face hostility and dismayed that they can't even say whatever they like without social consequences.

It's tempting to put conservatives as champions as speech at this point based on the fact that left-leaners see some ideas as not just points of debate/exploration but as attacks on values (which they do)... but of course there's plenty of ideas conservatives don't like to the point they'll engage with similar or greater hostility (see: kneeling during the national anthem). I think very few people are fully tolerant of any idea, and many of those who are probably have been in a fortunate position in life where ideas rarely have concrete consequences for them.

Your point about the values Facebook claims is well-taken, of course. This discussion arguably takes on a different aspect to the extent that Facebook tries to be quite liberal in its approach to speech and ideas. If that were to apply internally, if it were to take the shape of a policy where employees could openly discuss politics without fear of affecting their employment status, that'd be quite remarkable considering how incidental at best (and more likely friction-inducing) that is to the activity of most companies. Perhaps FB claims it as an ideal without a whole lot of care about how it actually plays out, perhaps it's just a PR move, or perhaps they genuinely consider it as important. But even if they do... there's simply no way to guard against diminished respect among co-workers if you're fond of Ayn Rand and they've assessed her and found her severely lacking, and little way to eliminate consequent individual hostility.

Is there any evidence that Mr. Amerige or others he holds solidarity with have faced anything else?