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

481–490 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#481

Post by carapace »

svnpenn wrote: post #320
ggm wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I leave this as an object lesson to self. I do often find the one finger points out, three point in rule, generally applies.

What is wrong with you? Why do you talk like that? It's like you take a normal sentence, then swap out some random words until it no longer makes sense. It's not cool, it's just weird.

Instead of getting rude, you could have just searched "one finger points out, three point in" on DDG:

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=one+finger+points+out%2C+th...

First result:

> 'When you point a finger at someone, remember there are three pointing back' ...

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#482

Post by monocasa »

JamesBarney wrote: post #468
monocasa wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much is a wrongful termination going to cost them? Max a couple million? How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO. I can see them being just willing to take the loss on the wrongful termination if they get to smear her on the way out and think they can get her to accept a deal in the end that comes with…

> How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO. Very few people really care about this issue enough to permanently change their behavior. My family was pretty upset about Gebru firing but when I visited all of their computers were still defaulting to search Google instead of Bing or duckduckgo. A lawsuit where t…

> A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse.

We already know they lied about firing Gebru.

> Also she hasn't denied the accusation.

The fact that she's not blasting the press yet isn't a point against her.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#483

Post by johncena33 »

thirtyseven wrote: post #290
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…

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?

There is a huge difference between balatantly violating company policy, name calling your manager and creating drama online to garner attention and doing your job in professional manner. She knew what she was doing and she staged martyrdom for her Twitter mob audience and activist news media.

It saddens me more is that so many people in this thread can't (or unwilling to) differentiate between doing your job in professional manner and creating drama online. Sigh, it will only get worse.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#484

Post by monocasa »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #478
monocasa wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the more reason for her to have a copy of her emails.

"I know, since I'm worried I'm going to get fired for vague non-specific reasons, I'm going to directly violate company policy and get terminated for cause" is an odd game plan.

I assume there was something extremely incriminating in the emails if she backed them up.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#485

Post by systemvoltage »

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…

Meanwhile, Timrit is spinning up more choas on Twitter: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1362886704361791488

At this point, I am moving past all this drama. This corporate soap opera televised on Twitter needs to cease.

If the person fired thinks that it was illegal, they should settle this in the court with Google. A company can fire anyone for any reason that's legal just the way you can leave the company for any reason.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#486

Post by JamesBarney »

marricks wrote: post #474
JamesBarney wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Lying about why an employee fired in an easily verified way is a huge unforced error. We can probably assume Google is not that incompetent. 2. She hasn't denied the accusations.

She could of downloaded documents for an attorney or to search for the allegations Timnit was accused of. Google will of course phrase it as damningly as possible. So once again, why assume Google has the moral high ground (in any way) in this firing or is being honest at all in it?

I'm not assuming Google has the moral high ground. I'm assuming that Google is not lying about an easily verifiable fact to the media especially when Meg is not disputing Google's events.

> She could of downloaded documents for an attorney or to search for the allegations Timnit was accused of

This would support Google's description of events as "exfiltrating a bunch of documents related to Gebru".

They also have a second source close to Meg that confirms she was running a script to exfiltrate a bunch of documents related to Gebru.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#487

Post by systemvoltage »

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…

Google doesn't need to disclose the details. It could contain their private information or someone else's.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#488

Post by manfredo »

bryan0 wrote: post #419
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.

It wasn't very misleading. Giving an ultimatum on threat of resignation is more or less entails giving your resignation if the company doesn't accept. My understanding is that the conversation more or less went:

Gebru: "Don't make me retract the paper and give me the names of the reviewers or I'll resign."

Google: "We're not doing that. We accept and respect your decision to resign from Google."

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#489

Post by dragonwriter »

systemvoltage wrote: post #487
crazygringo wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Google doesn't need to disclose the details. It could contain their private information or someone else's.

Google doesn't need to, and no one needs to assume that Google’s description is accurate, either.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#490

Post by systemvoltage »

dragonwriter wrote: post #489
systemvoltage wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't need to disclose the details. It could contain their private information or someone else's.

Google doesn't need to, and no one needs to assume that Google’s description is accurate, either.

That's fine, that's why we have courts that can compell Google to disclose their justification.

Arm chair public justice and the mob-mentality needs to stop.

Post reply on HN