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

561–570 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#561

Post by cmdshiftf4 »

anonygler wrote: post #477
Aunche wrote: post #417

"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.

Everything is a "literal act of violence" to these people. Google is run by naive idealists who hire activists in droves and are then surprised to realize that those people are a bunch of unemployables.

Google, by virtue of its sheer influence in the industry, is primarily responsible for the activist-driven grief that has shat itself all over the tech industry in recent years.

So fuck them. Watching the toxic crops they've planted and tended to go for their own creator's throats is nothing short of delightful.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#562

Post by 333c »

anonygler wrote: post #477
Aunche wrote: post #417

"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.

Everything is a "literal act of violence" to these people. Google is run by naive idealists who hire activists in droves and are then surprised to realize that those people are a bunch of unemployables.

Putting "random words in quotes that people didn't actually say" is not conducive to productive and healthy discussion.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#563

Post by yuliyp »

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.

"company policy" at large corporations is not designed to do anything other than provide cover for the corporation to do what it wants.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#564

Post by darawk »

wokwokwok wrote: post #411
skissane wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

Has she given a contradictory version of events?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#565

Post by posguy »

cornel_io wrote: post #499
dragonwriter wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've said this before, but if it's not accurate then whoever said it publicly should be fired immediately because that is actionable if it's a lie. Google has extremely good lawyers and a PR machine that cares what they say. There's absolutely no way that they are plainly making it up.

Google has concealed and defended executives that are known sexual harassers: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se...

Google will happily take a slap on the wrist and pay out another few hundred million, as they have done just a few months ago. Might even pencil out PR wise to ensure Google controls the narrative on why these two employees were fired.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#566

Post by bryanrasmussen »

belltaco wrote: post #409
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…

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

I mean multiple external parties could mean two parties and technically not be a lie. It could also be multiple external services that she has an account at and still not technically be a lie. I guess someone could not be specifying more clearly how nefarious the goings on because of legal reasons, but it could also be that they're not specifying more clearly because then everyone would make the pffft noise and point and laugh.

I guess I just don't trust unclear language that emanate from within big corporations somewhere.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#567

Post by ALittleLight »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #566
belltaco wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean multiple external parties could mean two parties and technically not be a lie. It could also be multiple external services that she has an account at and still not technically be a lie. I guess someone could not be specifying more clearly how nefarious the goings on because of legal reasons, but it could also be that they're not specifying more clearly because then everyone would make the pffft noise and point…

I think it's the "external" part of the phrase that's a problem, not the "multiple". She could've sent it to one external party and that still may have been a fire-able offense.

(Of course, this depends on what she was sending, if it was really protected information, and who she was sending it to. If she was sending evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Google to her lawyer or a government official, then I don't know).

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#568

Post by JamesBarney »

monocasa wrote: post #539
JamesBarney wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was work…

> > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. > This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. She didn't provide a legal notice of resignation for California law, bec…

The question is "Did Google verifiably lie?"

I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word.

Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way?

1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, and demonstrated she wanted to leave the job 2. California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) 3. Gebru did not withdraw her resignation 4. Gebru no longer wished to work at Google 5. Gebru(as a manager) advised co-workers to stop work 6. Google "accepted" her resignation.

I don't think Gebru is a liar either. I think that her resigning and being fired are both reasonable one word descriptions of the events. Fired implies she wanted to continue working at Google, and resigned implies Google wanted to keep her employed. But neither of those were true.

They just mutually decided they weren't a good fit. Gebru because she thinks Google is evil, and Google because they thought Gebru was being unprofessional.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#569

Post by im3w1l »

warkdarrior wrote: post #367
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…

Typically that type of employee training in US is meant to limit sexual harassment, where a person thinks they are flirting and the co-worker on the receiving end is offended. HR would step in at that point and take action against the harasser, so i see that kind of training about being careful in socializing as a way to warn people about the consequences of their actions.

Castration leads to decreased sexual harassment too. But we don't allow companies to castrate their employees.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#570

Post by supergirl »

bitcharmer wrote: post #501
supergirl wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how would this system detect sharing with external accounts? sounds like they put some words together to make it sound like it’s all standardized and automated and not result of human actions

You are wrong. All outgoing email is being scanned for sensitive information in plain text or attachments. This is standard practice in every corporation and something you are being warned about when being on-boarded as a new-joiner.

why would she email it from her corp account to various accounts instead of emailing it to her personal account or just uploading it directly to some personal drive account
Post reply on HN