9 ms·

“Quite a few activists and researchers were fired for asking Google to be a bit more ethical” In the examples the author cited, those activists and researchers

by freyir 5y ago

“Quite a few activists and researchers were fired for asking Google to be a bit more ethical” In the examples the author cited, those activists and researchers were fired for reasons going beyond “asking Google to be a bit more ethical. And frankly it doesn’t seem ethical for activists, researchers, and the author to deliberately misconstrue facts whenever they believe they’re on the right side of an ethical (and sometimes just political) issue.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
I'm not sure this is true. Normally I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the Timnit situation was handled badly. Objectively, there was nothing wrong with her paper. You may have a point about the other researchers. I'm not familiar enough with their situations. But I dug into Timnit's pretty thoroughly. Their recent behavior isn't too encouraging either: https://archive.md/7jCQY https://archive.md/7jCQY (Related Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/jackclarkSF/status/1451273190974660612 https://twitter.com/jackclarkSF/status/1451273190974660612) Hopefully everyone will just chill out and focus on research.
- freyir 5y ago
  From what I read at the time, she wasn’t fired for the content of the paper (though she initially made it sound like this before more details became public). She gave the company an ultimatum to reveal the name of an anonymous reviewer or she would quit, and they took her threat seriously.
  - srvmshr 5y ago
    I have a feeling her continuous rants on Twitter is because her overall demands and feeling of entitlement were stood down. She demanded things which would have been just another kind of shit show and targeted harassment. A social-justice themed charade is being made out of just being salty at getting fired.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    She was subjected to a process that wasn't the norm at Google. I'd be pretty upset too. The details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313994 Discussion about whether the review process was normal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25308847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25308847
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Other people circumventing policy doesn't mean that it is fine for her to do it. It is really hard to judge as you do without more data on the circumstances of the other people circumventing the policy and not getting punished, right now we have to take their word that what she did wasn't worse than what most others did. We can't know that. Similarly one engineer force pushing code to fix an issue might be fine, but another engineer doing the same thing might not be fine and the second gets investigated, is that unfair? We can't tell, there isn't enough information here.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        Why do we have to take Google's word and not hers? (Especially in light of corroborating witnesses who say that what she did was completely normal)
        Jensson 5y ago
        Because plenty of other researchers working at Google regularly publish papers critical of Google and are just fine? Even Timnit had already done that many times, she just got into trouble this time but all the other papers she published was fine. If Google really cared about these researchers publishing critical pieces then Google would have shut down that entire group rather than just firing her.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        Right but the claim is that Google instituted a new policy, and applied it inconsistently without telling people, until it blew up in their faces when she was fired. Only after that did they formalize the policy, and saying that she was fired for circumventing and then questioning a policy that ostensibly didn't exist when she was fired doesn't have the same ring to it.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  Um - she wasn’t fired because of her paper - she required they out an anonymous reviewer or she wouldn’t be able to work there. It’s pretty likely the reviewer would have been harassed - a good thing perhaps if you have one view of thing - but a bad thing from another perspective. Google refused and accepted that she writing be able to continue working there
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    This is the common story, yes. But it evaporates when you dig into the details, which I've posted below. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965631 I think it's worth reflecting on why we're so quick to believe the corporate version of events. Corporations have an astronomical amount of power and influence. Aren't you at least a little curious whether it's true? And if there was nothing wrong with her paper, that raises the question of why an anonymous reviewer was grilling her about it.
    - shaklee3 5y ago
      Do you have sources other than quoting yourself on HN? I'd like to read them
    - geodel 5y ago
      > I think it's worth reflecting on why we're so quick to believe the corporate version of events I reflected on it and found that it mainly happens when the person affect have their entire work life on basis of their politics as opposed other victims of corporate malfeasance who get plenty of support/ empathy from general community.
    - freyir 5y ago
      It very much does not evaporate. Her paper got got flagged during internal review. There wasn’t time to revise it because she submitted it late. She then wrote an angry rant to her coworkers that claimed she was oppressed and told them to stop working. And then she demanded the name of the anonymous reviewer and threatened to quit if the company did not meet her demand. Your defense is that most papers were submitted late without a problem. Perhaps most papers don’t need revisions, but this one did, and there’s no excuse for how she handled it. I’ve had papers rejected from my company’s internal review process. It sucks, but it’s not the end of the world. You make some revisions and submit to the next conference. You don’t go ballistic and tell your coworkers their work is meaningless and threaten to quit unless you get your way.
- srvmshr 5y ago
  I have mentioned this long time ago and would do so again: No matter how righteous be the cause, threatening your employers and instigating a mutinous conduct with fellow employees doesn't go down too well. Both sides could have done better. Both sides includes Timnit's subsequent conduct as well.
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    > threatening your employers and instigating a mutinous conduct with fellow employees doesn't go down too well. That sounds to me like what strikes do. Sometimes they do go down well, sometimes they don't.
    - theptip 5y ago
      Right, the one-person strikes tend to be less effective.
      - Thorrez 5y ago
        I interpreted "with fellow employees" as in cooperation with fellow employees, so that wouldn't be a one-person strike. Although I guess it could be interpreted as against fellow employees.
        theptip 5y ago
        In this case, I think the initial ultimatum delivered to management was in the vein of “I will quit if you don’t do X” (not “we will quit”), but she was also trying to collaborate/mobilize with others in the company to pressure management. So a bit of both?
- hintymad 5y ago
  Timnit is unethical as hell. She's also the worst kind of being unethical: being unethical in the name of doing good. She second guessed the motives of her coworkers. She attributed every difference to her paper or claim to racism or white supremacy or oppression or any combination out of the three. For all I know, only a true racist would view everything through a racial lens. She's a disgrace to the research community.
  - srvmshr 5y ago
    I had some sympathies with her when the initial story broke out. But the continous flaming on Twitter, harping and retweeting her supportive followers and the performative activism for a select set of racial topic makes me feel she cares only about her own set of interests.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > She attributed every difference to her paper or claim to racism or white supremacy or oppression or any combination out of the three. This is basically mainstream teaching now (see critical race theory). It's like witch burning, if you don't agree with their claims and accusations then that only proves you are a sinner. And if you do confess, then Lord help you. I must say though, it is a bit rich that Google suddenly doesn't like it when the monster they helped to feed turns on them. > For all I know, only a true racist would view everything through a racial lens. The secular high priests of this ideology do and are.
    - aiisjustanif 5y ago
      > This is basically mainstream teaching now (see critical race theory). It's like witch burning… >> She attributed every difference to her paper or claim to racism or white supremacy or oppression or any combination out of the three. Critical race theory is not yelling to claim every problem is due to racism or oppression. While I don’t agree with all tenants of the recent evolution of critical race theory, I do with the historical purpose of it. > A collection of critical stances against the existing legal order from a race-based point of view — Roy L. Brooks Fast forward to today and you have a more broad and insistent approach developing with Critical Race Theory. Primarily due to all of the push back on having legitimate societal conversations and decisions about systemic discrimination since the civil right movement in the US (even going back to the 1968 Kerner Commission). > The secular high priests of this ideology do and are. While the focus now on structural determinism, the critiques of liberalism or the use of narratives and lived experiences of CRT might upset you. CRT is not at all simply what you described.
- random314 5y ago
  I have read the paper. There were several things wrong with it. The most glaring example was comparing the power consumption of training a machine learning NLP model with a gas guzzling jet. Not once in the paper does she mention that Google has been carbon neutral since 2008, because that would trash half her paper. The paper seemed of desperation to make non existent arguments.
  - ant6n 5y ago
    You mean Google bought pieces of paper and pretends that they represent removing co2 from the atmosphere, when in reality they don't. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-sustainability-lead-robin-bass/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-s...
    - random314 5y ago
      You can use the same argument to argue that EVs are a scam, because some electricity is generated by coal. The point is that electricity can have a green source, liquid carbon fuel can't. You absolutely cannot compare the two. FWIW, Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy.
      - ant6n 5y ago
        > Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy. But not since they declared themselves carbon neutral (which they originally accomplished with certificates). Note the original claim was 'carbon neutral since 2008'. Google also uses a large amount of resources besides electrical energy, so claiming to be neutral is a scam unless they actually sequester co2 permanently. > You can use the same argument to argue that EVs are a scam, because some electricity is generated by coal. It's not the same argument. But I do argue that EVs are not carbon neutral.
        random314 5y ago
        > Google also uses a large amount of resources besides electrical energy, so claiming to be neutral is a scam unless they actually sequester co2 permanently. I am going to have to ask for a citation for this. They claim to be carbon neutral, not that they don't use any resources at all. >> > Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy. > But not since they declared themselves carbon neutral Nobody has made this claim > Note the original claim was 'carbon neutral since 2008'. Which is true. > But I do argue that EVs are not carbon neutral. That is obvious
- justicezyx 5y ago
  If the now died down Timnit reporting did not convince you that Timnit didn't apply the right tactic, if we agree to set aside the legitimacy of her cause in the first place (which itself was and still is under intense debate), then there does not seem any good way to unify our views.
choppaface 5y ago
Dr. Gebru was fired for having approached a lawyer about workplace issues. (She told Jeff Dean and others that she was doing so in an email made public). That triggers Legal to retaliate and look for a reason to fire the employee, immediately. Jeff Dean let the conflict drag out 6+ months because he thought he had control of the situation (and he was wrong). Without Jeff Dean’s persistence, Dr. Gebru would probably have been retaliated upon as swiftly as those in the Alphabet Workers Union. That’s how Legal and HR work—- they retaliate if litigation looks imminent. (Levandowski lasted so long because he was dealing with not Jeff Dean but Larry Page). Google handled Dr Gebru’s exit differently than that of Anthony Levandowski, Andy Rubin, David Drummond, etc etc because Jeff Dean made the call in timing and he was really that clueless about public optics, especially with Tensorflow’s huge following. Moreover, Dr Gebru didn’t have the bankroll to fund a legal team like any of the others listed. A lot of the posts here suggest Google is struggling with scale. Dr Gebru’s case definitely would have been handled differently were Google a smaller company. Also if there wasn’t COVID—- keep in mind she was fired a couple days before Thanksgiving during COVID. The whole country was a mess then.
- nfkfjgnfne 5y ago
  Why are you lying? Gebru was fired because she gave an ultimatum to reveal the name of an anonymous reviewer, which Google declined.
- ergocoder 5y ago
  > Dr. Gebru was fired for having approached a lawyer about workplace issues. That is just very dishonest. She gave an ultimatum. Execs accepted the ultimatum. You are gaslighting other people on this topic. At the very least, you should've acknowledged that this is up to an interpretation. Regardless whether she was fired or quit, she was toxic as hell. She dragged Jeff Dean into an unrelated matter in public and implied Jeff Dean supported personal attack. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1278569638532530177 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1278569638532530177 -- this happened a few months before she left or was fired from google If a direct report did this to me, I would've wanted them to leave. In this case, Gebru wanted to leave (according to her ultimatum). Jeff Dean wanted her to leave (I don't doubt this. nobody wanted to work with a colleage who attacked them on twitter). I see a happy ending for both. Gebru and her supporters have been dishonest about the whole thing.
gerash 5y ago
Exactly, perhaps people read too many comic book with these one dimensional villains to think that an employee asked Google to be more ethical and then they fired them right there and you could hear an evil laugh in the background. I've looked at some of the correspondence between Timnit and others and it's fairly unprofessional on her part if you ask me and it has this self righteousness tone to it too. Another very funny thing people believe is that Google wanted to do "evil" things but their perfectly crafted plan fell apart at the last second when they realized that they have "do no evil" in their code of conduct. After much scrambling the order came from the top to quickly remove it to unblock the evil plans. That said, there sure are jerks at Google like any other company but I've realized most these dramatic stories regurgitated by the media is BS
- burnished 5y ago
  Do you think she got fired for those reasons? Citing her as sounding self righteous or unprofessional seems weak.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    She was not fired, she quit. She was publishing studies critical of Google, Google wanted at least the right to have studies of the company reviewed and to include more updated information etc. which is extremely gracious on the part of Google. She gave the company an ultimatum i.e. 'Change the Terms or I Quit' so they said 'We're not changing the terms, we accept your resignation'. It's galling how many people (and their supporters) think that they have a right to be employed by a company and then publicly criticize them with misleading information, unmitigated or reviewed by the company.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      That’s true for academics getting grants (being able to publicly critizise the one that gave them). Why would it not be true for academics being directly bankrolled by a company?
      - 5y ago

by freyir 5y ago

sillysaurusx 5y ago

I'm not sure this is true. Normally I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the Timnit situation was handled badly. Objectively, there was nothing wrong with her paper. You may have a point about the other researchers. I'm not familiar enough with their situations. But I dug into Timnit's pretty thoroughly. Their recent behavior isn't too encouraging either: https://archive.md/7jCQY https://archive.md/7jCQY (Related Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/jackclarkSF/status/1451273190974660612 https://twitter.com/jackclarkSF/status/1451273190974660612) Hopefully everyone will just chill out and focus on research.

freyir 5y ago
From what I read at the time, she wasn’t fired for the content of the paper (though she initially made it sound like this before more details became public). She gave the company an ultimatum to reveal the name of an anonymous reviewer or she would quit, and they took her threat seriously.
- srvmshr 5y ago
  I have a feeling her continuous rants on Twitter is because her overall demands and feeling of entitlement were stood down. She demanded things which would have been just another kind of shit show and targeted harassment. A social-justice themed charade is being made out of just being salty at getting fired.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  She was subjected to a process that wasn't the norm at Google. I'd be pretty upset too. The details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313994 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25313994 Discussion about whether the review process was normal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25308847 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25308847
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Other people circumventing policy doesn't mean that it is fine for her to do it. It is really hard to judge as you do without more data on the circumstances of the other people circumventing the policy and not getting punished, right now we have to take their word that what she did wasn't worse than what most others did. We can't know that. Similarly one engineer force pushing code to fix an issue might be fine, but another engineer doing the same thing might not be fine and the second gets investigated, is that unfair? We can't tell, there isn't enough information here.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      Why do we have to take Google's word and not hers? (Especially in light of corroborating witnesses who say that what she did was completely normal)
      - Jensson 5y ago
        Because plenty of other researchers working at Google regularly publish papers critical of Google and are just fine? Even Timnit had already done that many times, she just got into trouble this time but all the other papers she published was fine. If Google really cared about these researchers publishing critical pieces then Google would have shut down that entire group rather than just firing her.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        Right but the claim is that Google instituted a new policy, and applied it inconsistently without telling people, until it blew up in their faces when she was fired. Only after that did they formalize the policy, and saying that she was fired for circumventing and then questioning a policy that ostensibly didn't exist when she was fired doesn't have the same ring to it.
onphonenow 5y ago
Um - she wasn’t fired because of her paper - she required they out an anonymous reviewer or she wouldn’t be able to work there. It’s pretty likely the reviewer would have been harassed - a good thing perhaps if you have one view of thing - but a bad thing from another perspective. Google refused and accepted that she writing be able to continue working there
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  This is the common story, yes. But it evaporates when you dig into the details, which I've posted below. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28965631 I think it's worth reflecting on why we're so quick to believe the corporate version of events. Corporations have an astronomical amount of power and influence. Aren't you at least a little curious whether it's true? And if there was nothing wrong with her paper, that raises the question of why an anonymous reviewer was grilling her about it.
  - shaklee3 5y ago
    Do you have sources other than quoting yourself on HN? I'd like to read them
  - geodel 5y ago
    > I think it's worth reflecting on why we're so quick to believe the corporate version of events I reflected on it and found that it mainly happens when the person affect have their entire work life on basis of their politics as opposed other victims of corporate malfeasance who get plenty of support/ empathy from general community.
  - freyir 5y ago
    It very much does not evaporate. Her paper got got flagged during internal review. There wasn’t time to revise it because she submitted it late. She then wrote an angry rant to her coworkers that claimed she was oppressed and told them to stop working. And then she demanded the name of the anonymous reviewer and threatened to quit if the company did not meet her demand. Your defense is that most papers were submitted late without a problem. Perhaps most papers don’t need revisions, but this one did, and there’s no excuse for how she handled it. I’ve had papers rejected from my company’s internal review process. It sucks, but it’s not the end of the world. You make some revisions and submit to the next conference. You don’t go ballistic and tell your coworkers their work is meaningless and threaten to quit unless you get your way.
srvmshr 5y ago
I have mentioned this long time ago and would do so again: No matter how righteous be the cause, threatening your employers and instigating a mutinous conduct with fellow employees doesn't go down too well. Both sides could have done better. Both sides includes Timnit's subsequent conduct as well.
- Thorrez 5y ago
  > threatening your employers and instigating a mutinous conduct with fellow employees doesn't go down too well. That sounds to me like what strikes do. Sometimes they do go down well, sometimes they don't.
  - theptip 5y ago
    Right, the one-person strikes tend to be less effective.
    - Thorrez 5y ago
      I interpreted "with fellow employees" as in cooperation with fellow employees, so that wouldn't be a one-person strike. Although I guess it could be interpreted as against fellow employees.
      - theptip 5y ago
        In this case, I think the initial ultimatum delivered to management was in the vein of “I will quit if you don’t do X” (not “we will quit”), but she was also trying to collaborate/mobilize with others in the company to pressure management. So a bit of both?
hintymad 5y ago
Timnit is unethical as hell. She's also the worst kind of being unethical: being unethical in the name of doing good. She second guessed the motives of her coworkers. She attributed every difference to her paper or claim to racism or white supremacy or oppression or any combination out of the three. For all I know, only a true racist would view everything through a racial lens. She's a disgrace to the research community.
- srvmshr 5y ago
  I had some sympathies with her when the initial story broke out. But the continous flaming on Twitter, harping and retweeting her supportive followers and the performative activism for a select set of racial topic makes me feel she cares only about her own set of interests.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > She attributed every difference to her paper or claim to racism or white supremacy or oppression or any combination out of the three. This is basically mainstream teaching now (see critical race theory). It's like witch burning, if you don't agree with their claims and accusations then that only proves you are a sinner. And if you do confess, then Lord help you. I must say though, it is a bit rich that Google suddenly doesn't like it when the monster they helped to feed turns on them. > For all I know, only a true racist would view everything through a racial lens. The secular high priests of this ideology do and are.
  - aiisjustanif 5y ago
    > This is basically mainstream teaching now (see critical race theory). It's like witch burning… >> She attributed every difference to her paper or claim to racism or white supremacy or oppression or any combination out of the three. Critical race theory is not yelling to claim every problem is due to racism or oppression. While I don’t agree with all tenants of the recent evolution of critical race theory, I do with the historical purpose of it. > A collection of critical stances against the existing legal order from a race-based point of view — Roy L. Brooks Fast forward to today and you have a more broad and insistent approach developing with Critical Race Theory. Primarily due to all of the push back on having legitimate societal conversations and decisions about systemic discrimination since the civil right movement in the US (even going back to the 1968 Kerner Commission). > The secular high priests of this ideology do and are. While the focus now on structural determinism, the critiques of liberalism or the use of narratives and lived experiences of CRT might upset you. CRT is not at all simply what you described.
random314 5y ago
I have read the paper. There were several things wrong with it. The most glaring example was comparing the power consumption of training a machine learning NLP model with a gas guzzling jet. Not once in the paper does she mention that Google has been carbon neutral since 2008, because that would trash half her paper. The paper seemed of desperation to make non existent arguments.
- ant6n 5y ago
  You mean Google bought pieces of paper and pretends that they represent removing co2 from the atmosphere, when in reality they don't. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-sustainability-lead-robin-bass/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-s...
  - random314 5y ago
    You can use the same argument to argue that EVs are a scam, because some electricity is generated by coal. The point is that electricity can have a green source, liquid carbon fuel can't. You absolutely cannot compare the two. FWIW, Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy.
    - ant6n 5y ago
      > Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy. But not since they declared themselves carbon neutral (which they originally accomplished with certificates). Note the original claim was 'carbon neutral since 2008'. Google also uses a large amount of resources besides electrical energy, so claiming to be neutral is a scam unless they actually sequester co2 permanently. > You can use the same argument to argue that EVs are a scam, because some electricity is generated by coal. It's not the same argument. But I do argue that EVs are not carbon neutral.
      - random314 5y ago
        > Google also uses a large amount of resources besides electrical energy, so claiming to be neutral is a scam unless they actually sequester co2 permanently. I am going to have to ask for a citation for this. They claim to be carbon neutral, not that they don't use any resources at all. >> > Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy. > But not since they declared themselves carbon neutral Nobody has made this claim > Note the original claim was 'carbon neutral since 2008'. Which is true. > But I do argue that EVs are not carbon neutral. That is obvious
justicezyx 5y ago
If the now died down Timnit reporting did not convince you that Timnit didn't apply the right tactic, if we agree to set aside the legitimacy of her cause in the first place (which itself was and still is under intense debate), then there does not seem any good way to unify our views.

choppaface 5y ago

Dr. Gebru was fired for having approached a lawyer about workplace issues. (She told Jeff Dean and others that she was doing so in an email made public). That triggers Legal to retaliate and look for a reason to fire the employee, immediately. Jeff Dean let the conflict drag out 6+ months because he thought he had control of the situation (and he was wrong). Without Jeff Dean’s persistence, Dr. Gebru would probably have been retaliated upon as swiftly as those in the Alphabet Workers Union. That’s how Legal and HR work—- they retaliate if litigation looks imminent. (Levandowski lasted so long because he was dealing with not Jeff Dean but Larry Page). Google handled Dr Gebru’s exit differently than that of Anthony Levandowski, Andy Rubin, David Drummond, etc etc because Jeff Dean made the call in timing and he was really that clueless about public optics, especially with Tensorflow’s huge following. Moreover, Dr Gebru didn’t have the bankroll to fund a legal team like any of the others listed. A lot of the posts here suggest Google is struggling with scale. Dr Gebru’s case definitely would have been handled differently were Google a smaller company. Also if there wasn’t COVID—- keep in mind she was fired a couple days before Thanksgiving during COVID. The whole country was a mess then.

nfkfjgnfne 5y ago
Why are you lying? Gebru was fired because she gave an ultimatum to reveal the name of an anonymous reviewer, which Google declined.
ergocoder 5y ago
> Dr. Gebru was fired for having approached a lawyer about workplace issues. That is just very dishonest. She gave an ultimatum. Execs accepted the ultimatum. You are gaslighting other people on this topic. At the very least, you should've acknowledged that this is up to an interpretation. Regardless whether she was fired or quit, she was toxic as hell. She dragged Jeff Dean into an unrelated matter in public and implied Jeff Dean supported personal attack. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1278569638532530177 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1278569638532530177 -- this happened a few months before she left or was fired from google If a direct report did this to me, I would've wanted them to leave. In this case, Gebru wanted to leave (according to her ultimatum). Jeff Dean wanted her to leave (I don't doubt this. nobody wanted to work with a colleage who attacked them on twitter). I see a happy ending for both. Gebru and her supporters have been dishonest about the whole thing.

gerash 5y ago

Exactly, perhaps people read too many comic book with these one dimensional villains to think that an employee asked Google to be more ethical and then they fired them right there and you could hear an evil laugh in the background. I've looked at some of the correspondence between Timnit and others and it's fairly unprofessional on her part if you ask me and it has this self righteousness tone to it too. Another very funny thing people believe is that Google wanted to do "evil" things but their perfectly crafted plan fell apart at the last second when they realized that they have "do no evil" in their code of conduct. After much scrambling the order came from the top to quickly remove it to unblock the evil plans. That said, there sure are jerks at Google like any other company but I've realized most these dramatic stories regurgitated by the media is BS

burnished 5y ago
Do you think she got fired for those reasons? Citing her as sounding self righteous or unprofessional seems weak.
- jollybean 5y ago
  She was not fired, she quit. She was publishing studies critical of Google, Google wanted at least the right to have studies of the company reviewed and to include more updated information etc. which is extremely gracious on the part of Google. She gave the company an ultimatum i.e. 'Change the Terms or I Quit' so they said 'We're not changing the terms, we accept your resignation'. It's galling how many people (and their supporters) think that they have a right to be employed by a company and then publicly criticize them with misleading information, unmitigated or reviewed by the company.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    That’s true for academics getting grants (being able to publicly critizise the one that gave them). Why would it not be true for academics being directly bankrolled by a company?
    - 5y ago