4 ms·
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 inc
by 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 agoThat’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?
- pridkett 5y agoNo - the foundation of your question is a bit misaligned. The major difference is that as much as corporate research likes to pretend they’re academics, they’re not. In corporate research you’re not after some unalienable absolute truth that benefits society - you’re doing research that can benefit the company that is paying your salary. Sometimes those two align and that’s great. But anyone that thinks that an experienced researcher at a corporation will have the seem freedom as a tenured professor is missing something. In exchange for this tradeoff you get a lot better salary and don’t have to feel like all of your time is spent chasing grants.
- Aeolun 5y ago> you’re doing research that can benefit the company that is paying your salary So you are doing research within a slightly more defined scope. If you still call it research then the results are completely separate from your affiliation. If not, it’s not research, it’s just propaganda.