It is unfortunate that way too many commenters on a prior threads dismissed her as a some twitter personality and trivialized her body of work in spite of the fact that she is well regarded and reputable in the ML community.
It's becoming clear a rising number of her colleagues are in support of what she was seeking to publish. A reviewer on reddit mentioned the authors have plenty of time to make revisions if there were issues with the content. Not to mention, supposedly the internal reviewing processes are usually limited to the extent of sensitive disclosure and rarely the contents of the literature. Yet, emails from Google leadership seems to imply retraction was needed, providing very little reason.
The opaqueness of the internal feedback and expectations are highly suspicious and I was suprised to see no one bothered to question it. People have been bringing up the 2 weeks, yet internal Brain researchers have refuted that have never seen a policy like this excercised. It does appear as an attempt to suppress an important paper that was critical of another colleagues work (BERT) and the employer's intended research goals. It's similar to the kind of pushback Greenwald most recently received - yet the reactions here have been distinctly flipsidded - in support towards Google executives no less and unsympathetic to the researcher.