5 ms·

why would a company pay someone to publicly criticize them? in the case of google, there's already plenty of people willing to do that for free.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Booktrope 6y ago
Yeah, why wouldn't a company want a workforce full of yes-men and engineers who care about nothing but making shareholders money and making executives look good?
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  The key word is "publicly." You can oppose without doing it by proxy on Twitter.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  that's clearly a strawman interpretation of my comment. > why would a company pay someone to publicly criticize them? by all means, a healthy company should encourage internal critiques. but if you're going to take that criticism public, you can't expect to also collect a paycheck at the same time. do you make a habit of paying people to work against your interests?
  - crawfordcomeaux 6y ago
    I'm seeking to normalize community accountability practices that are pretty core to many indigenous cultures, including my Irish ancestors. So, yeah...I'll pay for that in every organization I get involved with from here on out. Just cause it's not normalized doesn't mean it isn't useful. The reason to do it is for the sake of actual accountability, as strictly internal accountability is nonsense. This is the business version of "keep it in the family": it gives all kinds of toxic behaviors a shade to hide and grow in, while keeping the public from actually choosing who gets their business based on their values.
    - hn8788 6y ago
      "community accountability practices" just sounds like mob justice. It seems like an especially bad idea in the current environment where people who are more than happy to join in an outrage mob after only hearing one side of the story, and sometimes aren't even affected by whatever they're targeting. A "community" shouldn't be anyone who happens to agree with you on twitter.
      - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
        At this point a fair proportion of the planetary population is affected by FAANG's ethical stance on ad tech. It's looking likely AI is only going to make that worse. A "community" should also not be an enforced happy smiley corporate PR face. And mob justice can also look a lot like running people out of town because they're not properly respectful.
      - crawfordcomeaux 6y ago
        I think what you're speaking to is the result of a lack of normalized practices actually oriented toward accountability and healing, rather than shaming, canceling, mobbing, etc. I'm not even saying I know how to do it. I think the current environment is an indicator of a greater need for true accountability and not the theater of "justice." I'd also say outrage mobs are the direct result of people confusing themselves with who is angering themselves. Many adults I know still insist it is other people who make them angry, instead of it being themselves who use the stimulus of others' actions to anger themselves. We need better EQ/CQ education and what you're highlighting points directly to it.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But how can community accountability practices work in an organization like Google, which hires from many different communities? It seems like it inevitably produces loud, angry, unresolvable conflict whenever your community and my community don't agree on a decision.
      - crawfordcomeaux 6y ago
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  There's a gulf between "hire only yes-men" and "hire activists who openly state a desire to undermine the company, who break its policies and share its internal documents to forward that agenda, and generally spend their global-0.1%-level salary accusing the company of actively harming the least among us". False dichotomies are bad.
- whatever1 6y ago
  KODAK
pwinnski 6y ago
It is literally the job of an AI ethicist to highlight ethical issues, so if they're publicly criticizing you, then you're likely doing something unethical. If your team of ethicists has repeatedly highlighted issues and you continue to not address them, what should they do then? In the case of a company whose self-image is of openness and directness and benevolence, it seems reasonable that publicly highlight the lack of change is within reason. If they cared less, they'd just shut up, but employees seem to have a higher opinion of Google than Google does of them. Firing them in the middle of that suggests an unwillingness to deal with the previous issues, doubling down on unethical behavior.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  I might be speaking from ignorance here, but I highly doubt their job description said anything about making accusations via tweet. > If your team of ethicists has repeatedly highlighted issues and you continue to not address them, what should they do then? In the case of a company whose self-image is of openness and directness and benevolence, it seems reasonable that publicly highlight the lack of change is within reason. if they strongly disagree with the direction the company is taking, they ought to refuse to be part of it and resign. public criticism can wait until they stop collecting the (quite fat, I imagine) checks. edit: I guess I'm not really objecting to the public criticism before leaving the company. I'm objecting to the incredible feeling of entitlement it must take to expect to keep getting paid while actively damaging your employer.
  - Aeolos 6y ago
    And how exactly is your suggestion going to play out in the long term? All the critical employees resign, until they are all eventually replaced yes-men who just care about the money or are too afraid to speak out. And if a company is doing something unethical, then why is it inherently _bad_ to damage that company until it changes direction? Acting in unethical ways has to hurt the bottomline, otherwise what incentive is there for a company to change?
    - room500 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Booktrope 6y ago

Yeah, why wouldn't a company want a workforce full of yes-men and engineers who care about nothing but making shareholders money and making executives look good?

MattGaiser 6y ago
The key word is "publicly." You can oppose without doing it by proxy on Twitter.
leetcrew 6y ago
that's clearly a strawman interpretation of my comment. > why would a company pay someone to publicly criticize them? by all means, a healthy company should encourage internal critiques. but if you're going to take that criticism public, you can't expect to also collect a paycheck at the same time. do you make a habit of paying people to work against your interests?
- crawfordcomeaux 6y ago
  I'm seeking to normalize community accountability practices that are pretty core to many indigenous cultures, including my Irish ancestors. So, yeah...I'll pay for that in every organization I get involved with from here on out. Just cause it's not normalized doesn't mean it isn't useful. The reason to do it is for the sake of actual accountability, as strictly internal accountability is nonsense. This is the business version of "keep it in the family": it gives all kinds of toxic behaviors a shade to hide and grow in, while keeping the public from actually choosing who gets their business based on their values.
  - hn8788 6y ago
    "community accountability practices" just sounds like mob justice. It seems like an especially bad idea in the current environment where people who are more than happy to join in an outrage mob after only hearing one side of the story, and sometimes aren't even affected by whatever they're targeting. A "community" shouldn't be anyone who happens to agree with you on twitter.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      At this point a fair proportion of the planetary population is affected by FAANG's ethical stance on ad tech. It's looking likely AI is only going to make that worse. A "community" should also not be an enforced happy smiley corporate PR face. And mob justice can also look a lot like running people out of town because they're not properly respectful.
    - crawfordcomeaux 6y ago
      I think what you're speaking to is the result of a lack of normalized practices actually oriented toward accountability and healing, rather than shaming, canceling, mobbing, etc. I'm not even saying I know how to do it. I think the current environment is an indicator of a greater need for true accountability and not the theater of "justice." I'd also say outrage mobs are the direct result of people confusing themselves with who is angering themselves. Many adults I know still insist it is other people who make them angry, instead of it being themselves who use the stimulus of others' actions to anger themselves. We need better EQ/CQ education and what you're highlighting points directly to it.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    But how can community accountability practices work in an organization like Google, which hires from many different communities? It seems like it inevitably produces loud, angry, unresolvable conflict whenever your community and my community don't agree on a decision.
    - crawfordcomeaux 6y ago
Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
There's a gulf between "hire only yes-men" and "hire activists who openly state a desire to undermine the company, who break its policies and share its internal documents to forward that agenda, and generally spend their global-0.1%-level salary accusing the company of actively harming the least among us". False dichotomies are bad.
whatever1 6y ago
KODAK

pwinnski 6y ago

It is literally the job of an AI ethicist to highlight ethical issues, so if they're publicly criticizing you, then you're likely doing something unethical. If your team of ethicists has repeatedly highlighted issues and you continue to not address them, what should they do then? In the case of a company whose self-image is of openness and directness and benevolence, it seems reasonable that publicly highlight the lack of change is within reason. If they cared less, they'd just shut up, but employees seem to have a higher opinion of Google than Google does of them. Firing them in the middle of that suggests an unwillingness to deal with the previous issues, doubling down on unethical behavior.

leetcrew 6y ago
I might be speaking from ignorance here, but I highly doubt their job description said anything about making accusations via tweet. > If your team of ethicists has repeatedly highlighted issues and you continue to not address them, what should they do then? In the case of a company whose self-image is of openness and directness and benevolence, it seems reasonable that publicly highlight the lack of change is within reason. if they strongly disagree with the direction the company is taking, they ought to refuse to be part of it and resign. public criticism can wait until they stop collecting the (quite fat, I imagine) checks. edit: I guess I'm not really objecting to the public criticism before leaving the company. I'm objecting to the incredible feeling of entitlement it must take to expect to keep getting paid while actively damaging your employer.
- Aeolos 6y ago
  And how exactly is your suggestion going to play out in the long term? All the critical employees resign, until they are all eventually replaced yes-men who just care about the money or are too afraid to speak out. And if a company is doing something unethical, then why is it inherently _bad_ to damage that company until it changes direction? Acting in unethical ways has to hurt the bottomline, otherwise what incentive is there for a company to change?
  - room500 6y ago