5 ms·

Obviously the individual who was let go loves the fame but I see most news website are pretty much looking for some sensational story to run mainly because doin

by gerash 6y ago

Obviously the individual who was let go loves the fame but I see most news website are pretty much looking for some sensational story to run mainly because doing more thorough analysis doesn't pay for itself. That's the problem.

prodtorok 6y ago
I don't think it's as innocent as "loves the fame" ... there is a greater theme in our society regarding the influence of public opinion; and how influencers are abusing that in politics/positions of power. The media of course enables it, which I think is a sign of a growing, large scale, rational fragility across society (demand controls their publication, there is a large demand for this type of information)
- actuator 6y ago
  FB gets criticized a lot in HN but Twitter isn't. IMO Twitter is absolutely the worst platform for things like these because of the prevalent mob culture. It is very easy to organise people using your influence and they can easily hound out any dissenting opinion. I will have to search for them now but I saw people doxxing some of the current Googler's identities if they agreed with the resignation. This is extremely toxic. Even the old media seems to love Twitter and it escapes FB level of scrutiny.
  - prodtorok 6y ago
    Completely agree. I'd say, historically speaking, that Facebook became a constrained negative environment while twitter was more of an open, entertaining, and free environment (and less tied to actual life/society). This isn't the case any longer. Facebook is now far less egregious & more of a soft environment to socialize with people you personally know. Bubbles/pockets of societal function and some large-influence which is lesser enabled than the prior. Twitter is a platform that justifies large societal movement through "influential information". (I don't have the best english to articulate here)
  - Reedx 6y ago
    That's because Twitter is the platform of journalists.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Facebook radicalized weird uncles, but twitter radicalized journalists.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Mob culture didn't start with Twitter though. It was just not as effective before social media when people were anonymous. At least in most cases. Now social media sites encourage people being public figures, which is an insanely bad advice for the vast majority of individuals.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  Maybe instead of labeling it "rational fragility" you should take some effort to understand what people are actually saying.
tb303 6y ago
Just a nudge from a stranger: Please take a moment to consider the extremely difficult position "the individual" may be in, the frustrations leading up to this, and the possible negative impact this has on their career that they had to weigh before naively thinking that they "love the fame." that's gamergate mentality in action and will work against you.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  So you’re saying it’s actually about ethics in AI? ;)
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  Timnit's position is a direct result of her actions and internal reputation at Google. No one forced her to do any of the following things: 1. Griping about the racist reviewers of her paper on Twitter. 2. Sending an email to a internal list criticizing Google's behavior and telling people to stop working on diversity. 3. Demanding the names of reviewers and threatening to resign if they weren't provided. #2 or #3 would get you fired or cause your resignation to be accepted any place that I've worked. #1 wouldn't get you fired but it's not going to help your career.
  - tb303 6y ago
    even if i agreed with you about some of those points (and i worked at google 2013-2015, internally criticized many of their processes, and was lectured about "my place" at google), everything you said is independent of reading into someone's motives. you're arguing with a point i am not making at all and trivializing the abuse timnit subjects herself to in going public with this.

by gerash 6y ago

prodtorok 6y ago

I don't think it's as innocent as "loves the fame" ... there is a greater theme in our society regarding the influence of public opinion; and how influencers are abusing that in politics/positions of power. The media of course enables it, which I think is a sign of a growing, large scale, rational fragility across society (demand controls their publication, there is a large demand for this type of information)

actuator 6y ago
FB gets criticized a lot in HN but Twitter isn't. IMO Twitter is absolutely the worst platform for things like these because of the prevalent mob culture. It is very easy to organise people using your influence and they can easily hound out any dissenting opinion. I will have to search for them now but I saw people doxxing some of the current Googler's identities if they agreed with the resignation. This is extremely toxic. Even the old media seems to love Twitter and it escapes FB level of scrutiny.
- prodtorok 6y ago
  Completely agree. I'd say, historically speaking, that Facebook became a constrained negative environment while twitter was more of an open, entertaining, and free environment (and less tied to actual life/society). This isn't the case any longer. Facebook is now far less egregious & more of a soft environment to socialize with people you personally know. Bubbles/pockets of societal function and some large-influence which is lesser enabled than the prior. Twitter is a platform that justifies large societal movement through "influential information". (I don't have the best english to articulate here)
- Reedx 6y ago
  That's because Twitter is the platform of journalists.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Facebook radicalized weird uncles, but twitter radicalized journalists.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Mob culture didn't start with Twitter though. It was just not as effective before social media when people were anonymous. At least in most cases. Now social media sites encourage people being public figures, which is an insanely bad advice for the vast majority of individuals.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
Maybe instead of labeling it "rational fragility" you should take some effort to understand what people are actually saying.

tb303 6y ago

Just a nudge from a stranger: Please take a moment to consider the extremely difficult position "the individual" may be in, the frustrations leading up to this, and the possible negative impact this has on their career that they had to weigh before naively thinking that they "love the fame." that's gamergate mentality in action and will work against you.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
So you’re saying it’s actually about ethics in AI? ;)
throwaway19937 6y ago
Timnit's position is a direct result of her actions and internal reputation at Google. No one forced her to do any of the following things: 1. Griping about the racist reviewers of her paper on Twitter. 2. Sending an email to a internal list criticizing Google's behavior and telling people to stop working on diversity. 3. Demanding the names of reviewers and threatening to resign if they weren't provided. #2 or #3 would get you fired or cause your resignation to be accepted any place that I've worked. #1 wouldn't get you fired but it's not going to help your career.
- tb303 6y ago
  even if i agreed with you about some of those points (and i worked at google 2013-2015, internally criticized many of their processes, and was lectured about "my place" at google), everything you said is independent of reading into someone's motives. you're arguing with a point i am not making at all and trivializing the abuse timnit subjects herself to in going public with this.