Margaret Mitchell fired from Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#411

Post by wokwokwok » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

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…

> but I think it is much more likely...

...but you really have no idea.

You’re just speculating, in a way that conforms with how you’d like to interpret these events.

Which, to be fair, is what we’re all doing, with basically no information on what actually happened.

At this point, it’s all just the he-said-she-said from the Google PR machine.

I think in this case, there’s little reason for someone without bias to accept Google’s versions of events.

Maybe you’re right; if you’re not, maybe she’ll sue. Maybe not.

What is clear though is that what you think is likely, is probably not particularly indicative of what actually happened because, flat out, you have no idea.

None of us really do at this point.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#412

Post by Quarrelsome » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #359

xiphias2 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Corps have a habit of buying in US services tailored for a US audience and then just blithely pushing that crap out to all their international employees with scant attention about outcomes, its just "mandatory".

As such you have to watch some real thoughtless, poorly put together, bottom of the barrel crap so legal can tick a box that diminishes their responsibility. Given the motivations at play here I wouldn't be surprised if they ballsed it up like this.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#413

Post by JamesBarney » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:20 AM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #379

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…

> In short, she was getting paid handsomely while calling out her bosses by name and taking them through the dirt I think their job was just that: call out the company (and others) on AI ethics issues - I don't see how it comes as a surprise to you that a person in such a role is also concerned about ethics in general, or the ethics of AI ethics at Google, so to speak.

You think their job responsibilty was to publically shame their employer? (With private internal documents no less)

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#414

Post by jeffbee » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:20 AM UTC

marricks wrote: post #401

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...

A company, Google included, will not comment on the circumstances of an employee's exit unless provoked. It is uncharacteristic for them to comment at all. If they are willing to go public with any statements, that indicates to me that they feel their reasons are iron-clad.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#415

Post by Quarrelsome » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:22 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #342

xiphias2 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are right, I was working in Switzerland, not in US. What I remember clearly though is that Google's training contained material about how I am allowed to socialize with coworkers outside work, which may be allowed in the US, but it was clearly against the Swiss constitution (my job security was more important to me than speaking up about this though)

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 work a corp that dishes out mandatory training and I feel like you have the wrong end of the stick. Its not necessarily well put together by smart people, rather its cheaply produced, so this outcome would not be surprising.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#416

Post by johncena33 » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

chronic3802 wrote: post #338

soheil wrote: post #25

> Within the next year, let those of us in positions of privilege and power come to terms with the discomfort of being part of an unjust system If you have this pinned to your Twitter (on 2/5) about your employer why are you still working there and not resigning? It took Google 14 days to fire her, which I suppose is the typical two weeks notice since that date.

> why are you still working there and not resigning? Simple: she wants to still be paid by Google.

Additionally, she can stage martyrdom in front of Twitter and vulture news media. If she quits and writes blog posts about her experience working at Google, she would no way get the same amount of attention she is getting now. This is called performative activism.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#417

Post by Aunche » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:24 AM UTC

"Firing @timnitGebru created a domino effect of trauma for me and the rest of the team, and I believe we are being increasingly punished for that trauma."

Wow. These activists are truly living in an alternate reality.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#418

Post by Quarrelsome » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:25 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #264

cwhiz wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm curious how you think someone who is a professional ethicist is supposed to do their job without being allowed to comment on ethics. It's not a cog-in-a-machine profession. Having critical opinions is what the job is about. It's literally stupid for a corporation to employ an ethicist and then somehow be outraged and appalled when they have their ethics questioned and challenged.

I think publicly posting about why its bad your colleague was fired/resigned while still working for a company is just a bad idea in general.

Quit and make the post sure but believing you can shit talk in public while still working is a bit off, isn't it?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#419

Post by bryan0 » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

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…

“Cut and dry”? Given how google fired a previous AI ethicist in an entirely misleading way (“We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google”), it would be naive to take google at their word here.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#420

Post by monocasa » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #414

marricks wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

A company, Google included, will not comment on the circumstances of an employee's exit unless provoked. It is uncharacteristic for them to comment at all. If they are willing to go public with any statements, that indicates to me that they feel their reasons are iron-clad.

Or they think that the PR win for going to the press early is worth more than the lawsuits.

Comparing this situation to your standard firing situation isn't going to add up. The calculus is different, as can be seen from the mere fact that it's being discussed here and has news articles written about it.