3 ms·
"As you can see in this thread, she was treated unfairly. S" This is not true. The fact that she may or may not have had extra scrutiny than others, within re
by jollybean 5y ago
"As you can see in this thread, she was treated unfairly. S"
This is not true.
The fact that she may or may not have had extra scrutiny than others, within regular policy or not is completely besides the point.
If a company, for whatever reason, wants to have 'another review' of the paper, it's completely within their purview.
"Her paper was anodyne. No one would've blinked if it was published."
Our view of whether it was notable or not is irrelevant. If the company wanted to put the brakes on it, especially because it related to Google, then that's their choice.
It's hugely arrogant for her to make the claims she did - let alone publicly (!) - by all right she should have been fired for that, she was luckily the conditions enabled her to even try to establish the premise of her own resignation.
- joshuamorton 5y agoA company being legally allowed to do something doesn't implicitly make that thing fair or ethical. You can simultaneously believe that Google has the right to quash any paper, and believe that doing so arbitrarily is unfair. So yes, she was treated unfairly. And that's absolutely relevant to people's decision making. Like, what do you think it's irrelevant in relation to? Its not clear what you mean by publicly, nothing was done outside of Google until after she was fired.