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

401–410 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#401

Post by marricks »

Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“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-abl…

It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word after a 5 week investigation with literally no details coming out.

Google also decided to drop this bombshell on a Friday the same day they are announcing a rebranded ethics team. It’s clear they wanted to bury this story and the leaders of the old team.

I for one don’t plan to in any way give Google the benefit of the doubt here...

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#403

Post by pseudalopex »

skissane wrote: post #376
pseudalopex wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google didn't say where she sent the documents. Forwarding emails to her own employment lawyers would be exfiltrating company documents technically.

I don't know, but I think it is much more likely that she is being fired for sharing internal info with journalists, outside activists, or former employees, than for sharing it with her own counsel. Your employer might not like you sharing their internal info with your own attorney (under attorney-client privilege), but if they fire you for it, they potentially expose themselves to significant legal risk. Maybe you a…

It wouldn't be the first time Google miscalculated legal risk.

And they didn't say they fired her for exfiltrating documents. That's how most people will interpret what they said. But they left room to say it wasn't material.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#404

Post by sn41 »

spicyramen wrote: post #390

Good riddance, work is work, political agendas outside the office space please.

The mandate of the department is ethics. Ethics is not agnostic to one's personal convictions, unlike code. People assume that because someone got fired, they "lost". Another viewpoint is that they retained their ethical integrity at great personal cost - doing so is precisely their actual job.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#405

Post by benlivengood »

guardiangod wrote: post #103
sillysaurusx wrote: post #94

It's pretty important to get this story straight: She moved files when she wasn't supposed to. This seems like a pretty standard firing. People are already claiming on twitter that Google is assaulting ethical AI, and I just don't see it. Google did not immediately comment on those claims. Its statement said of Mitchell: “We confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our secur…

>She moved files when she wasn't supposed to If that's true, that's not very ethical is it?

Were Snowden's leaks ethical?

It's pretty common for rule-breaking and law-breaking to be ethical when rules, laws, and norms are unethical.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#406

Post by johncena33 »

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…

Well, what she is doing is called performative acitvism. She is doing staged martyrdom in front of Twitter mob and activist media. She can try to do the job well, if she felt like she was being hired as a PR move and not for any actual impact, she should've quit and told her story. I guess she didn't feel she will get any media attention if she has taken the high road. Instead she created all these drama including blatantly violating company policy. I am not sure whether she has done all these things in good faith.

Unfortuantely the amount media attention (including this very thread) these people get, it will encourage more staged martyrdoms. Soon, we will have our own tech industry reality TV show. Sadly, that's the reality we are heading into right now.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#407

Post by johncena33 »

crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #234
pvorb wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can either accept that your words are not heard, or quit.

Or speak out publicly. Always an option.

> Or speak out publicly. Always an option.

Or speak out publicly. Always an option without making any drama and being professional. [FTFY]

It scares me that so many people in this thread can't (or unwilling to) differentiate between creating drama and being proferssional.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#408

Post by [deleted] »

Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“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-abl…

[deleted]

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#409

Post by belltaco »

crazygringo wrote: post #393
Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“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-abl…

It's so vague it's hard to draw any conclusion without specifics. "Exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents" could be nefariously downloading proprietary research for personal gain... or innocently downloading a Slides presentation to your personal phone as a PDF in preparation for a client meeting in case it's impossible to connect to their Wi-Fi. Or saving e-mail communications with your manager in…

According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties".

https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#410

Post by solipsism »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #382
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…

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.

Ideal is right, because that is idealistic to the point of naivete. The second a company takes its eye off the ball and starts trying to better the world, its competitors swoop in and take over.

The right answer is for a society to create laws that ensure the behavior we want to see out of corporations. When that's not effective because corporations have undue influence on the legal system, then it's very clear and simple the problem you need to solve.

Post reply on HN