That's kind of the point though. Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?
> suppress discussion they don't agree with Worth noting: he could post this publicly on Google+, Blogspot, or any other Google platform. It's only his paycheck that's being suppressed, his views are not.
What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with…
If I were to tell multiple co-workers to their face that they are inferior to me, I would be fired. This guy told a very large amount of his co-workers that they're inferior to him, and he posted it all over the Internet for everyone to see. You'd be hard pressed to find a company where leveling personal attacks against your co-workers isn't a fireable offense. Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from t…
You did not read the memo. He did no such thing. If you really think there is one passage in there that states that, please cite it.
> I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it To try to shed a little light on this phenomenon, the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way." Using the expansion in your paragraph: ===== I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about why…
> the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here are illegitimate in some way." Accepting your characterization here for the sake of argument: if his claims are so laughably ridiculous as to be easily refutable, people should just have pointed to studies refuting it (of which there are plenty) and gone about their day. When you can't…
His "theories" have been destroyed for decades. It's always the same old shit. We are tired of it. If you don't even have the decency to document yourself before blurting out such crap, you may not deserve much patience.
Remember: this guy lost a job. Discriminations kill and ruin the lives of millions routinely.
> unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
I don't see many references. I just see a lot of stereotyping with no citations at all. Eg: > Women, on average, have more: > ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing) > ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, hig…
There were references that were removed by Gizmodo. The list above refers to the big 5 personality traits, which I believe is standard in psychology. Also, there is a clear difference between discussing average qualities of a group vs declaring that every individual in that group shares those qualities. It's also clear from reading the document that he's engaged in the former, and anyone pretending otherwise is being blatantly dishonest.
But it is. Just because he holds one opinion does not mean that he will act on it, expect google to act on it, or cause harm because of it. Ideas don't hurt people. People with no way to voice their ideas and opinions become angry, and then hurt other people.
Guessing you’re not a minority in anyway. When others who aren’t a member of your class tell you anything that’s inherent to your class DOES hurt people... such ideas are often used to restrict what you can do or set you up for failure in society in a particular way because ideas spread. They also do a lot of internal self-harm just from being expressed by others. It’s bad enough to get that in life in general, but t…
You know what they say about assuming things...
I get this is a sensitive topic, but don't try to discount my opinion by claiming I don't have the necessary experience or vantage point. You know nothing about me.
I'm not following. I will gladly debate this with you. Don't assume I don't want to engage, or that I would attempt to censor your view.
The point I think the parent is trying to make is that some times debating certain ideas is validating them a little bit. It's as if someone asked me to jump off a bridge: discussing whether he should jump or not would be like saying "there is some possibility that you convince me and I jump off the bridge". Indeed, you should enter a debate with the idea that the other might convince you, right? If you are not going…
> unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
His "references" are mostly Wikipedia links. I wish he had posted the anti-echo-chamber parts on their own, instead of using them to decorate an argument on gender differences.
I agree they weren't the best references available.
I doubt he expected this to blow up like it did; I imagine a Harvard PhD candidate would have provided better references if he'd known it would be public.
A right to free speech doesn't mean you are also free from any consequences for that speech.. ? The Constitution allows you to say whatever you want but your employer's also free to fire you for saying it. As an example, if you say racist things to a customer, your employer should be able to fire you. I have heard people say he should get fired, but I haven't heard anyone saying he should be "expelled from society" o…
That is an is-ought argument. There is absolutely no good reason political views and free speech and can't, and shouldn't, be added as protected classes.
That would violate an employer's first amendment right to freedom of association. If a company finds your political views odious, they have no obligation to allow you on their property or give you money.
What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with…
I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast ... Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that. But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here ."
>But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here."
And that's probably OK and kind of expected. To me what was interesting was that even the CEO had to not only denounce it, but also cut his vacation short to hold a staff town-hall.