4 ms·
What's misleading about the title? You have your own way of characterizing the email, and so does the publication. Them not agreeing with you isn't the same as
by cool_dude85 6y ago
What's misleading about the title? You have your own way of characterizing the email, and so does the publication. Them not agreeing with you isn't the same as misleading you.
- robertlagrant 6y agoDisagreement about characterisation matters if one characterisation is just not true.
- cool_dude85 6y agoSure, only that doesn't seem like the case here. Are you really gonna argue that the email is in a factual, true-or-false sense, not "withering"?
- room500 6y agoI agree that there is a fine line here. In general, if I hear "withering e-mail" without context, I imagine an e-mail sent between two parties (or at most, a handful) where one party is cutting down the other directly. When I hear that an employee was fired for a "withering e-mail", I immediately think of retaliation. In this case, "e-mail" is almost inconsequential. This "e-mail" was a broadcast to hundreds of people who were not in any way involved with the subject matter. It was "withering" in the sense that it cut someone down, but the person/company it cut down wasn't even in the TO field. Words matter. I now notice that the post title is changed to the much more neutral "AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google".