4 ms·

She's not a victim. She was an employee who sent in her resignation/ultimatum letter and then blasted an unprofessional message to a bunch of her colleagues. S

She's not a victim. She was an employee who sent in her resignation/ultimatum letter and then blasted an unprofessional message to a bunch of her colleagues. She is obviously doing good research, but I could also see why she wouldn't be a good fit for Google (or really any other large tech company). I really don't see why this isn't a win for everyone. She said she didn't want to work there under current conditions, now she's not. I'm sure she'll get a job in academia or at a think tank where she'll be able to be much more critical of Google and big tech. The world will better off because her voice and research won't be toned down by a Google internal review. And Google gets to get rid of a problematic employee. It's a win-win-win.

UncleMeat 6y ago
> She's not a victim. She was an employee who sent in her resignation/ultimatum letter and then blasted an unprofessional message to a bunch of her colleagues. The most interesting part of the story is the part that happened before this.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Where google requested she retract her paper to include information that was flattering to google and Google thought was relevant?
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    They just demanded that she retract it. No opportunity to adjust it to include the additional information (there would be ample time to do this between review and the camera-ready).
    - sontek 6y ago
      In the article it says the co-author specifically requested the paper not be published because they "didn’t want such an early draft circulating online". Sounds like Timnit might have jumped the gun a bit and it wasn't just google that thought it wasn't ready.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        They requested that it not be distributed online because it has not yet completed peer review, which usually comes with recommendations to improve the paper in either small or large ways. That is very different than retracting it from the conference review.

UncleMeat 6y ago

> She's not a victim. She was an employee who sent in her resignation/ultimatum letter and then blasted an unprofessional message to a bunch of her colleagues. The most interesting part of the story is the part that happened before this.

JamesBarney 6y ago
Where google requested she retract her paper to include information that was flattering to google and Google thought was relevant?
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  They just demanded that she retract it. No opportunity to adjust it to include the additional information (there would be ample time to do this between review and the camera-ready).
  - sontek 6y ago
    In the article it says the co-author specifically requested the paper not be published because they "didn’t want such an early draft circulating online". Sounds like Timnit might have jumped the gun a bit and it wasn't just google that thought it wasn't ready.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      They requested that it not be distributed online because it has not yet completed peer review, which usually comes with recommendations to improve the paper in either small or large ways. That is very different than retracting it from the conference review.