3 ms·

> We praise whistleblowers left and right on HN, at the expense of objectivity (assange, snowden, et al), despite ethical issues with them. HN has a large audi

by throwaway19937 6y ago

> We praise whistleblowers left and right on HN, at the expense of objectivity (assange, snowden, et al), despite ethical issues with them. HN has a large audience with a broad range of opinions. In my opinion, Snowden and Manning are traitors and the latter should have been left in prison. > Had a white male done this, it's hard not to think he'd be praised as a hero on here. I'd be equally dismissive of any person who committed the following actions. 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.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> HN has a large audience with a broad range of opinions. In my opinion, Snowden and Manning are traitors and the latter should have been left in prison. Just like any large audience a hive mind exists. There are more posts in favor of Snowden/Assange on here than in favor of this google employee. In general, more come to their defense, than hers, despite doing similar things. Those aren't why you're dismissive. You've made up your mind on her, and make those items "dismissive" to support your POV, because you can't actually prove one way or the other. Perhaps some of the reviewers are racist. We've seen in the past 4 years that racism is alive and well in this country. I don't see a problem with sending an internal email to colleagues. Should everyone just fall in line and do everything asked ever and never want change? If she is publicly publishing a paper, reviewers should publicly publish their reviews, especially if they're negative. At this point, if we don't know the reviewers, we can't tell if they're genuine reviews, or not.
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  > Just like any large audience a hive mind exists. There are more posts in favor of Snowden/Assange on here than in favor of this google employee. In general, more come to their defense, than hers, despite doing similar things. These cases are completely different. Snowden and Assange exposed a global surveillance network that many are opposed to. I think of Snowden as the Kim Philby of the 21st century but that's a different discussion. Dr. Gebu disagreed with the peer reviews of a paper, threatened to resign, and Google accepted her resignation. > Those aren't why you're dismissive. You've made up your mind on her, and make those items "dismissive" to support your POV, because you can't actually prove one way or the other. Perhaps some of the reviewers are racist. We've seen in the past 4 years that racism is alive and well in this country. She may feel that her paper was rejected because the reviewers are racist; I think it's more likely that they disagreed with the quality of the work. There was probably an administrative screw-up with its submission, though. Neither of us can prove anything. It's unlikely that all the facts will come out in any event; Google would settle the case if it went to court. > I don't see a problem with sending an internal email to colleagues. Should everyone just fall in line and do everything asked ever and never want change? Have you read the email (https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-an-ethical https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...) that she sent? Would you expect to keep your job if you sent a similar email at work? Diversity is the third rail of modern companies - criticize or discourage it and you're gone. > If she is publicly publishing a paper, reviewers should publicly publish their reviews, especially if they're negative. At this point, if we don't know the reviewers, we can't tell if they're genuine reviews, or not. Anonymous peer reviews are a standard practice in industry and academia. If you demand the names of reviewers and threaten to resign if they aren't provided then don't be surprised if your employment ends.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

> HN has a large audience with a broad range of opinions. In my opinion, Snowden and Manning are traitors and the latter should have been left in prison. Just like any large audience a hive mind exists. There are more posts in favor of Snowden/Assange on here than in favor of this google employee. In general, more come to their defense, than hers, despite doing similar things. Those aren't why you're dismissive. You've made up your mind on her, and make those items "dismissive" to support your POV, because you can't actually prove one way or the other. Perhaps some of the reviewers are racist. We've seen in the past 4 years that racism is alive and well in this country. I don't see a problem with sending an internal email to colleagues. Should everyone just fall in line and do everything asked ever and never want change? If she is publicly publishing a paper, reviewers should publicly publish their reviews, especially if they're negative. At this point, if we don't know the reviewers, we can't tell if they're genuine reviews, or not.

throwaway19937 6y ago
> Just like any large audience a hive mind exists. There are more posts in favor of Snowden/Assange on here than in favor of this google employee. In general, more come to their defense, than hers, despite doing similar things. These cases are completely different. Snowden and Assange exposed a global surveillance network that many are opposed to. I think of Snowden as the Kim Philby of the 21st century but that's a different discussion. Dr. Gebu disagreed with the peer reviews of a paper, threatened to resign, and Google accepted her resignation. > Those aren't why you're dismissive. You've made up your mind on her, and make those items "dismissive" to support your POV, because you can't actually prove one way or the other. Perhaps some of the reviewers are racist. We've seen in the past 4 years that racism is alive and well in this country. She may feel that her paper was rejected because the reviewers are racist; I think it's more likely that they disagreed with the quality of the work. There was probably an administrative screw-up with its submission, though. Neither of us can prove anything. It's unlikely that all the facts will come out in any event; Google would settle the case if it went to court. > I don't see a problem with sending an internal email to colleagues. Should everyone just fall in line and do everything asked ever and never want change? Have you read the email (https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-an-ethical https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...) that she sent? Would you expect to keep your job if you sent a similar email at work? Diversity is the third rail of modern companies - criticize or discourage it and you're gone. > If she is publicly publishing a paper, reviewers should publicly publish their reviews, especially if they're negative. At this point, if we don't know the reviewers, we can't tell if they're genuine reviews, or not. Anonymous peer reviews are a standard practice in industry and academia. If you demand the names of reviewers and threaten to resign if they aren't provided then don't be surprised if your employment ends.