6 ms·
It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - Google fired
by hpoe 6y ago
It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation.
1 - Google fired Gebru for trying to push a paper that presented google in a negative light. Doing so by creating special magic policies for her and then telling her she was fired. The concern in this case appears to be the fact that Google is suppressing criticism and ignoring it's own Ethics department and this is an example of morality being destroyed for profit.
2.- Gebru acted in an incredibly unprofessional manner following instruction to retract a paper, including posting charged complaints and accusations on an internal company mailing list as well as demanding to have revealed to her the identities of people that reviewed her paper and found it wanting. Those in this camp seem to generally accept that her firing was a result of unprofessional behavior from an employee that was disruptive to the organization. They then see that Google accepted her offer of having her demands met or working on an exit date as a reasonable business decision [See note], and see the subsequent drama as an attempt to draw attention to herself. Ultimately they see it as removing a toxic employee.
I don't really know what my point is but it seems in these comments we generally have 2 totally different discussions going on with one side lambasting the other for being ignorant, naive, or clueless.
Note: Also point of clarification that I don't see often asserted, it is SOP to remove a disgruntled employee's access to everything as quickly as possible after (or often before) termination in order to prevent them from using their access in a manner detrimental to the company.
- Analemma_ 6y agoI think the synthesis of both of these narratives goes like this: Google had been wanting to get rid of Gebru for a while, for both good reasons (based on her emails and tweets she does indeed seem like an incredibly toxic personality and I sure wouldn't want to work anywhere near her) and bad (retaliation against the lawsuit she filed last year, which is both unlawful and incredibly unethical). They picked this paper as what must have seemed like a clean reason when she made the threat to resign, but taking her up on that threat has blown up in their face because everyone can see their supposed rationale doesn't hold water. Taken as a whole, neither side looks particularly sympathetic, which makes it easy for partisans to latch onto the bad behavior of whomever they dislike.
- StavrosK 6y agoI mostly agree, but on the other hand, if you were Google and wanted to fire Gebru, how would you do it? It's not like there's a better alternative, just firing her normally would probably have been worse.
- nmfisher 6y agoIt’s abundantly clear that Google was itching to get rid of her. They probably couldn’t believe her luck when she (stupidly) tried to bully them with not just a threat of resignation, but an actual statement of “I will resign on date XXX”. I also don’t believe that Google would have done this for no reason (given her behaviour during the LeCunn incident) so I’m sympathetic towards Google’s conduct. If Gebru had simply come out and said “Google tried to censor my paper and so I was forced to resign”, I would be thinking very differently.
- jasonv 6y agoShe also claimed she was previously going to sue Google. She claimed it loudly and publicly. As long as we’re accounting...
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoI don’t believe anyone has claimed she said “I will resign on date XXX.” The wording I think she and Dean have said she used was “or I will work on a last date” or something. As in “or I’ll work on figuring out what my last date at google will be.”
- busterarm 6y agoThat's a commitment to resign. Many large companies have a policy of walking out a resigned employee immediately.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoI’m not arguing that she did or didn’t resign, just that she didn’t say “or my last date is the 10th” or anything else that clear.
- panny 6y agoPoint 1 sounds a bit like the Hundred Flowers Campaign. Mao invited critics to openly express opinions on how to improve the communist party, then one year later, rounded up those who did under the Anti-Rightist Campaign for persecution and executions.
- hpoe 6y agoI think there is a little bit of a difference between a prominent researcher being let go from Google and a revolutionary dictator performing a genocidal purge of people on suspicion of disloyalty.
- thu2111 6y agoWell, Damore was fired after being explicitly invited to give feedback. Probably anyone at Google who agrees with the firing is going to keep their head down because why risk being chopped like Damore was?
- that_guy_iain 6y agoFor me, it's the fact it seems Google was quite willing to keep her around and keep allowing her be so toxic people felt they had to go to HR and anonymously give feedback and that they didn't just fire her straight away for publishing a paper they didn't like.
- pseingatl 6y agoRE: the above: I see that HR has weighed in.