Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#381

Post by renewiltord »

wbl wrote: post #332
renewiltord wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have ham at Christmas. Now I've got this weird feeling I've been doing something that's a faux pas but I can't find a reference on the Internet anywhere. Why will people complain about the ham sandwiches?

Jews do not eat ham. They also don't celebrate Christmas. Having an office Christmas party and serving mostly ham is a great way to drive home exclusion. Or e.g. demanding people work late Fridays. Observant Jews absolutely, positively have to get home by sundown on Friday.

Ohhh, it's the double whammy of having a Christmas party at work and having the ham. I get it, I get it.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#382

Post by SuoDuanDao »

thewarrior wrote: post #62

I’ve been wondering how sincere the Silicon Valley corporate mantra of Be yourself, Be authentic, be open to management really was. There was so much idealism even on Hacker news. Nowadays I witness the strange contradiction of people bashing giant tech companies while mostly discussing how to found the next giant tech company. A lot of us did genuinely believe it. However as the companies grew and became mega corps…

For myself, I reconcile the tension by telling myself that giant tech companies are like invasive species - aggressive and bad for the environment in the short term, but also the only thing that can survive in a certain kind of environment.

The proper goal, as I see it, is to plan to build the next giant tech company and be willing to step on as many toes as necessary to make it happen... but to have an ideal in mind that goes beyond that 'growth at all costs' stage in which the company could actually increase the health of its ecosystem.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#383

Post by grumple »

benlumen wrote: post #48

I'm not interested in the details of this, but from a distance - people sure do make life difficult for themselves, bringing politics and their opinions and controversy into workplaces. It's always tech and academia, too - you'd think it'd be enough to get just paid shitloads of money for interesting knowledge work and save the drama for friends in the pub (or the bar, or whatever).

I’m very vocal at work about all sorts of things. But to openly condemn your employer repeatedly on social media, steal data, then complain about the repercussions? How absurd. And this person is in charge of ethics for your company? I could not think of a more inappropriate position for such a person.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#384

Post by worker767424 »

trhway wrote: post #348
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…

>The firing of Dr. Timnit Gebru is not okay, and the way it was done is not okay. if i remember correctly she made an ultimatum and threatened to resign, and her resignation was accepted. That doesn't look like firing until we call "firing" any resignation when one disagrees with the employer. To me that intentionally looking sleight of hands with firing/resignation in the Mitchell's doc already undermines trust to w…

I have no idea why the media (people through this word around, but in this case, it's a lot of major outlets) keeps reporting it as her getting fired when she clearly threatened to resigned as an ultimatum. Maybe Google making it immediate changed things, but saying "fired" is pretty disingenuous.

Margaret Mitchell got fired, though. 100%.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#385

Post by sangnoir »

cwhiz wrote: post #177
buildbot wrote: post #131

It’s a really common refrain here that if you are employee critical of your employer you should expect to get fired… Well perhaps, but you’d think that specifically someone in AI ethics needs to be empowered to speak up against both internal external issues. Or did google just want an research ethics hit team against other companies technologies? Makes me wonder if project zero is really trying as hard as possible wi…

It’s not like she’s an ombudsman for Google. If she has concerns she should voice those concerns internally. If she doesn’t feel that her concerns are being taken seriously, she should quit. On the way out the door, she should tell her story. It’s honestly just basic professionalism. Don’t publicly trash your employer.

> It’s honestly just basic professionalism. Don’t publicly trash your employer.

I'm sure the fine folk at Project Zero didn't get this memo.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#386

Post by worker767424 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #299
thirtyseven wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hire an Ethics team if you won't let them interrogate unethical behavior?

> Why hire an Ethics team if you won't let them interrogate unethical behavior? The same reason to hire a token minority in a position of on-paper significance: something to point to for PR purposes. But, with an ethics team, there's also another advantage; if you get strong people who would be contributing to the field anyway and constrain their output to suit your interests, you reduce the degree to which areas you…

The real question is why would you join an ethics team that's obviously for PR purposes, then complain about it being for PR purposes.

These resigned/fired researchers might be good in their field, but they're pretty dumb when it comes to their jobs.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#387

Post by Crash0v3rid3 »

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement.

This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-able offense at any company.

I feel bad for her but I honestly don’t understand why she is even surprised she got fired.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#388

Post by ineedasername »

cambalache wrote: post #270
ineedasername wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably not intelligent then. In the early 00's, I did think Google mostly believed in its mission to organize and act as a gateway for the world's information.

You were naive, not dumb, usual thing with young people

Yep, though I knew even at the time that most companies' mission statements were BS. Google seemed different. I think at some point they still actually were different, but also were themselves naive about what being successful and transforming into a large corporation would do to them.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#389

Post by SuoDuanDao »

david38 wrote: post #153
uoaei wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A right to free speech, and freedom from employer discrimination due to political beliefs.

As the cancel culture supports love to point out, freedom of speech is freedom from government persecution, not freedom from consequences.

I'm a little conflicted on this one. On the one hand, it seems like a clear case of 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. On the other hand, maybe a bunch of gun-toting conspiracy theorists speaking up for these professional ethicists would be the hand of friendship that could breach a deep but narrow chasm in public life.

But realistically, I imagine if a gun-toting conspiracy theorist showed up, someone like the article subject would scapegoat them for another month of comfortable employment, so she's probably exactly where she needs to be.

Post reply on HN