3 ms·

I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment

I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published, especially not published with the name of the company or the company's researchers attached. I think that's basically Google's stand.

BeetleB 6y ago
> I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published I'm not really sure what your point is. At a very basic level: Of course they would not prefer it published. Just like they would prefer not to have transparency, pay competitive market salaries, give free lunches, have an HR department, etc. We all prefer things if we can get them. I would, however, expect that if a company hired a researcher to study whether their work is ethical, then it's silly to get in that researcher's way. If my company hired someone to ensure their supply chain for manufacturing does not involve sweatshops, then it certainly wouldn't look good if my company prevents him from saying so. If we aren't prepared for uncomfortable truths, we should not hire people to look into them. I honestly think there are other reasonable reasons to get rid of this researcher than what you are positing.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I'm not saying that they fired Gebru because of this reason. I'm saying that's why they wanted the paper pulled. Dean says as much in his statement - that the paper lacked the context that explained new efficiencies and what Google was doing to solve these problems. I think Gebru's reaction, the ultimatum and the email, were what led to her firing. Curious what you think the reasons to fire her were.

BeetleB 6y ago

> I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published I'm not really sure what your point is. At a very basic level: Of course they would not prefer it published. Just like they would prefer not to have transparency, pay competitive market salaries, give free lunches, have an HR department, etc. We all prefer things if we can get them. I would, however, expect that if a company hired a researcher to study whether their work is ethical, then it's silly to get in that researcher's way. If my company hired someone to ensure their supply chain for manufacturing does not involve sweatshops, then it certainly wouldn't look good if my company prevents him from saying so. If we aren't prepared for uncomfortable truths, we should not hire people to look into them. I honestly think there are other reasonable reasons to get rid of this researcher than what you are positing.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I'm not saying that they fired Gebru because of this reason. I'm saying that's why they wanted the paper pulled. Dean says as much in his statement - that the paper lacked the context that explained new efficiencies and what Google was doing to solve these problems. I think Gebru's reaction, the ultimatum and the email, were what led to her firing. Curious what you think the reasons to fire her were.