Margaret Mitchell fired from Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#351

Post by uh_uh » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

skissane wrote: post #46

schoolornot wrote: post #28

No qualms for Googlers getting a reality check. I don't get why people think they work at a liberal think-tank where no consequences exist for sharing opinions or confidential data about the company publicly. Had someone on my team decided to write a similar doc like the one Margaret published, I'd have fired them on the spot. Shut your mouth and move on if your ideology conflicts with your employer's.

> Had someone on my team decided to write a similar doc like the one Margaret published, I'd have fired them on the spot I sometimes don't agree with decisions my (present and past) employers have made. But I'd never go to the media or public forums with those disagreements. If I thought it was so important that I had to do that, I'd resign first. I strenuously avoid making any public comment about my current employe…

I'm curious, what will Mitchell's and Gebru's career prospects be from now on? After badmouthing their employer publicly, sharing internal communication, I just don't see who in their right minds would hire them.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#352

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

GavinMcG wrote: post #199

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what will be an entirely self-serving, "everything is evidence for my existing worldview" claim... ...I would promote race-blindness as the solution to this. The more we talk about and focus on race, especially in a zero-sum context like "buy black-owned", the worse the racial tensions and competition will become. People confuse cultural power with economic power...just because many powerful people/businesses supp…

Yes, antiracism must be measured by its effects. Google's campaign had antiracist intentions, and racist effects. That doesn't mean we should all give up on effective antiracism, though. This tactic/campaign/etc. was not antiracist. Others can be. It's not clear at all why this should be taken to mean that "the more we talk about race...the worse the racial tensions and competition will become." The conversation arou…

I could have been clearer but I meant to stress "in zero-sum contexts". Not all race discussion is necessarily bad/harmful in outcomes.

However it sure does appear to me that in the last five or ten years, the manner of the conversation has degraded so much that very very little progress is made per unit of "increasing tensions". That is entirely subjective, but it is how it appears to me.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#353

Post by D13Fd » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

croissants wrote: post #324

D13Fd wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interrogating corporate behavior and publicly embarrassing the corporation are two totally different things. You can employ someone and have them develop and even publicly espouse ethics principles, while also instructing them to keep their criticism of corporate behavior confidential to the corporation. This is super common in other professions sometimes charged with enforcing ethical and legal corporate behavior, i…

> This is super common in other professions sometimes charged with enforcing ethical and legal corporate behavior, including law and accounting. It's not a new idea. I'd be interested in reading about guidelines for people tasked with "enforcing ethical and legal corporate behavior" in other industries, do you have any references?

It's a huge field, but the core rules for lawyers are here:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

As one of many, many examples, leaders in the employment law field regularly write publicly about fair employment practices (particularly when it comes to discrimination, whether racial, age-related or disability-related), and strive for changes in the law and in employers' practices. At the same time, they also counsel their employers or clients about the rules and about compliance. That's fine.

But a lawyer generally cannot publicly critique their employer/client without permission. Public disclosure of an employer's or client's confidential information without permission violates, for example, ABA model rule 1.6, and is a great way to get yourself disbarred (or at least face disciplinary action).

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#354

Post by throwaway3699 » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:45 AM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #315

Viliam1234 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be both? The left-wing employees may have the political power within the company , but the algorithm maximizing clicks could end up recommending right-wing content because more users click on it.

The original claim was that Google uses their political power to push leftish views and censor right/far right views, so that particular claim is not consistent

You can push left wing views while still having more people choose right wing recommendations. There's a kind of feedback loop which pushes people to different viewpoints.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#355

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:46 AM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #158

oblio wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is almost purely limited to interactions with a state. Why are people trying to shoehorn it into everything?

Free speech is a moral value. The First Amendment is limited to the Government.

We also learned about “First Amendment values” in law school. This idea that there is no moral component associated with the First Amendment is a new and weird one.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#356

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:47 AM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #282

leetcrew wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would a company pay someone to publicly criticize them? in the case of google, there's already plenty of people willing to do that for free.

It is literally the job of an AI ethicist to highlight ethical issues, so if they're publicly criticizing you, then you're likely doing something unethical. If your team of ethicists has repeatedly highlighted issues and you continue to not address them, what should they do then? In the case of a company whose self-image is of openness and directness and benevolence, it seems reasonable that publicly highlight the la…

I might be speaking from ignorance here, but I highly doubt their job description said anything about making accusations via tweet.

> If your team of ethicists has repeatedly highlighted issues and you continue to not address them, what should they do then? In the case of a company whose self-image is of openness and directness and benevolence, it seems reasonable that publicly highlight the lack of change is within reason.

if they strongly disagree with the direction the company is taking, they ought to refuse to be part of it and resign. public criticism can wait until they stop collecting the (quite fat, I imagine) checks.

edit: I guess I'm not really objecting to the public criticism before leaving the company. I'm objecting to the incredible feeling of entitlement it must take to expect to keep getting paid while actively damaging your employer.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#357

Post by pbreit » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:49 AM UTC

aerosmile wrote: post #261

You will learn a lot about Margaret Mitchell's firing by simply reading this piece she shared publicly on Twitter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uO... A few punchlines: "Every moment where Jeff Dean and Megan Kacholia do not take responsibility for their actions is another moment where the company as a whole stands by silently as if to intentionally send the horrifying message that Dr. Geb…

I always wonder how smart, driven people aren't able (willing?) to cope with these situations.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#358

Post by throwaway3699 » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

ttt0 wrote: post #194

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what will be an entirely self-serving, "everything is evidence for my existing worldview" claim... ...I would promote race-blindness as the solution to this. The more we talk about and focus on race, especially in a zero-sum context like "buy black-owned", the worse the racial tensions and competition will become. People confuse cultural power with economic power...just because many powerful people/businesses supp…

> ...I would promote race-blindness as the solution to this. Don't you know that colorblindness is white supremacy? So good luck with arguing that. https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1267529522041282563 For those who don't know, this is the author of Code of Conduct and Hippocratic License.

"All lives matter" is white supremacy?

That is the most tepid, centrist, mainstream view you could have. Literally the view of MLK

For fucks sake, the US is lost if this continues, and I don't say that lightly.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#359

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:51 AM UTC

xiphias2 wrote: post #350

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly did this training say? I'm just a little suspicious that Google was saying you couldn't socialize with friends outside the office, since that's unenforceable, not in their interests, and also deeply stupid.

I didn't write that that we couldn't, it was about how we could. For example we shouldn't tell a coworker that he/she's pretty, shouldn't get drunk together, and a lot of behaviour that is considered flirting and getting to know eachother in Switzerland. In US behaviour outside Google is handled by the company as well, but in Switzerland there are very strict privacy laws and culture that forbid companies to control…

TBH I am again skeptical that there was a training that said this. I could buy if there were a training that explained that such behaviors could be construed as harassment under certain circumstances (e.g. if you had previously made advances and been turned down). I could buy if there were a training that told you you should think twice before doing these sorts of things. That's just sensible advice, since if someone does take your behavior as harassment and took the complaint to HR, then you're in a bad situation, at best. A training that banned you from doing those things? I doubt.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#360

Post by dukeofdoom » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 1:52 AM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #315

Viliam1234 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be both? The left-wing employees may have the political power within the company , but the algorithm maximizing clicks could end up recommending right-wing content because more users click on it.

The original claim was that Google uses their political power to push leftish views and censor right/far right views, so that particular claim is not consistent

You have to be wilfully blind to think that tech companies are some sort of benevolent, apolitical, neutral arbiters of truth. Here's a direct article from Today confirming that tech companies are coordinating censorship with your government.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/19/white-house-working-with-socia...