6 ms·
This seems like another attempt at generating controversy for its own sake, as though the mere existence of functionality that helps people write effectively is
by otterley 5y ago
This seems like another attempt at generating controversy for its own sake, as though the mere existence of functionality that helps people write effectively is worth having angst over. If people want it, they’ll use it. If not, they won’t. Same as with grammar and spell checkers.
Don’t rich people have better things to do than incite others over trivialities? There’s a world of problems that need solving that people like Marc and his ilk could really move the needle on if they set their minds and put their resources to it.
- cft 5y agoThe problem is that this private company has a list of words that they decided was inappropriate. By highlighting these words in their monopolistic product (Google Docs), they are influencing discourse and shaping opinion and implicitly educating children that use the docs, by providing them with their opinionated advice and suggestions for replacement.
- skybrian 5y agoIt seems like "monopolistic" is the load-bearing word here, and it doesn't apply for writing tools. People write in lots of different editors.
- cft 5y agoI suppose "lots" mean more than one or two. Can you provide a list of cloud-based shareable free office suits?
- InitialLastName 5y agoI'm not going to do it, but Wikipedia's got you covered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_office_suites#Online_(web-based)_office_suites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_office_suites#Online_(...
- bobsomers 5y ago> Can you provide a list of cloud-based shareable free office suits? You've moved the goal posts to narrow the focus onto Google Docs, though. When my grandma wants to write a letter, she doesn't go searching for a "cloud-based shareable free office suite". She launches whatever is already installed on her computer.
- shakezula 5y agoIf you're going to argue Google Docs is a monopoly, the burden of proof is on _you_ to provide the evidence.
- naoqj 5y agoLike when you googled "american inventors" and you only got black ones.
- HL33tibCe7 5y agoCouldn’t this be explained by the fact that the phrase “African American inventors” is used a lot?
- shakezula 5y agoWhat's wrong with getting Black inventors in your search results?
- shakezula 5y ago> implicitly educating children The classic "think of the children" argument. Who could possibly argue against the children? > By highlighting these words in their monopolistic product (Google Docs) Google Docs isn't a monopoly, and you're betraying your bias in your criticism by pushing that narrative.
- Minor49er 5y agoMonopoly, no. But Google certainly dominates education in the US: "Today, more than half the nation’s primary- and secondary-school students — more than 30 million children — use Google education apps like Gmail and Docs, the company said. And Chromebooks, Google-powered laptops that initially struggled to find a purpose, are now a powerhouse in America’s schools. Today they account for more than half the mobile devices shipped to schools." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-chromebooks-schools.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-educati...
- shakezula 5y agoAgain, I don’t agree they “dominate education”. That’s like saying that Bic dominates education because a huge percentage of kids write with a Bic pen or pencil every day.
- Minor49er 5y agoTeachers who accept work with pen and paper will be able to accept work if non-Bic pens are used. Bic pens aren't used to drive classroom learning, collaboration, and assignment completion like Google Classroom, Gmail, or Docs. Bic pens also don't stop to correct you when you misspell a word or suggest that you use a different word when you've used one that it deems to be offensive to a hypothetical audience. I'm not sure how someone can have a notable majority in anything and not be said to be dominating that thing.
- otterley 5y agoCan you provide any concrete examples of the suggestions being provided in the document authoring context; how they are incorrect, inappropriate, or harmful; and how you might correct them? If you can demonstrate an actual problem, that would lend some weight to this argument.
- cft 5y agohttps://twitter.com/thecitywanderer/status/1516176983549530122?t=9J68qbuUvCsJtHC6gYiKsg&s=19 https://twitter.com/thecitywanderer/status/15161769835495301...
- Karawebnetwork 5y agoDictionaries already have such warnings in them. Look up Eskimo, Gypsy and c**n (racial slur) in most dictionaries. I have Merriam-Webster open in a tab right now, so let's check. It says "plural Eskimo or Eskimos, now sometimes offensive" (with a long explaination paragraph under), "usually offensive, see usage paragraph below" (again, with a long paragraph explaining) and "offensive —used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a Black person. Being aware of inappropriate words in not new. Dictionaries are available in schools. Should we ban them now?
- serenitylater 5y ago
- flatearth22 5y ago
- version_five 5y agoRight, the typical "why are you so upset" smug dismissal that seems to be the fallback when something doesn't have any merits, including casual insults or provocation like "having angst"... But somehow it's still important to comment and mock, lest others might think he has a point. When I saw the article, I knew that MS Word has had something like this for a while. I thought is was stupid but not worth my "angst". But people taking the time to speak out against this silliness are doing something good, and casually dismissing and mocking their concerns, rather than taking part in the conversation for or against, or just not commenting, is basically cowardice.
- caddemon 5y agoMy favorite part about the "why are you so upset" argument is that it almost always gets used against both sides in the "culture wars". I doubt anybody commenting on HN is frothing at the mouth, but given that we treat stating an opinion as being upset these days, literally everyone that has any opinion at all is upset over something trivial - because the whole fucking thing is stupid. Like sure I should be doing something better with my time than philosophizing about whether it is okay to delist a couple random Dr. Seuss books. It's true I never actually intended to buy them and would've never noticed otherwise. But hello somebody went through the effort to cancel them in the first place. Don't those people have something better to do than worry about whether one of the dated illustrations in a not particularly popular children's book is a little culturally insensitive? Google is the one that put a non-trivial amount of engineering hours into this feature. I can see ways in which it would be helpful, I can also see how it could be problematic. Regardless though, if we think about the big picture, Google is the one that could have meaningfully increased their impact by redirecting their efforts towards more serious problems. The time spent commenting on this issue on HN pales in comparison and I'm not sure how one could ask the "don't you have anything better to do?" question of commenters without asking it of Google. At least if their opinion truly is that this doesn't matter either way.
- BadCookie 5y agoI agree. The serious problems that need solving are things like police killing Black people unjustly and young gay people harming themselves because their parents don’t accept them. This excessive language policing is a distraction from the real problems in my opinion.
- defen 5y agoI think this is a bit of a shortsighted take. The fundamental question is: should Google allow its systems/software to be used to generate homophobic/sexist/racist/transphobic content? If Google can determine with high likelihood (perhaps through a combination of language modeling of your Google Docs/email + examining your browsing history, search history, email contacts, purchase history, physical location, etc) that you are generating that sort of content, why should you be allowed to use Google for anything?
- browningstreet 5y agoShould Home Depot enforce an Acceptable Use Policy for the many potentially harmful things (ok, let's call them "tools") they sell?
- defen 5y agoHome Depot generally has no way to know how you're using their products once they're sold. The very nature of an internet service means that Google continuously monitors your usage of their products.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tick_tock_tick 5y agoI mean they don't and I don't think they should start.....
- caddemon 5y agoBut that isn't at all what Google is trying to do here. The first example in the Twitter thread is an "inclusiveness warning" about the word landlord. On the one hand, nobody is forced to use their suggested words just like nobody is forced to fix the grammar mistakes Google underlines. So it may have some cultural influence but it isn't really authoritarian. It's also not creepy in the sense that it is not using your data outside of what is directly in the Doc. On the other hand, it is not flagging actually bigoted content, it is more akin to GitHub renaming the master branch (or at the very least that is a subset of what this flags). It would be horrifying if that kind of "infraction" actually did prevent you from using Google services. And I'd be seriously skeptical of any attempted bigotry detection like you're describing that is built on top of the system discussed here.
- bobthechef 5y ago
- HL33tibCe7 5y ago> If people want it, they’ll use it. If not, they won’t. Same as with grammar and spell checkers. Well, it’s enabled by default. Many people won’t know, or won’t bother to find out, how to disable it. They’ll likely just click through and accept the suggestions. In any case, the mere suggestion is bound to have some effect on people writing. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory. Hell, maybe that’s a good thing. Using inclusive language is good. But let’s not sit here and say “this is just a non-issue” because it isn’t.
- istinetz 5y ago>Using inclusive language is good. Is it, though? Using "inclusive" as a terminal value for writing means that other values, such as "conciseness" and "clarity" and "beauty" decrease, for the same amount of effort. As an extreme example, that front page in the Lancet that referred to woman as "bodies with vaginas". And for that cost, I don't believe there is any benefit. Even aside from cost/benefit analysis, I strongly disagree that tech giants ought to nudge the writing I create and consume. People respond to propaganda, and my values don't align with theirs.
- otterley 5y ago> Using "inclusive" as a terminal value for writing means that other values, such as "conciseness" and "clarity" and "beauty" decrease, for the same amount of effort. Do you have any data that points to this? It's not clear that there is a zero-sum game here, or that conciseness and inclusiveness are diametrically opposite goals with metrics that completely cancel each other out.
- istinetz 5y ago>Do you have any data that points to this? What data could I possibly have here? Even theoretically? What do you want me to give you? >It's not clear that there is a zero-sum game here Not necessarily exactly zero-sum, but it's very clear to me - adding a new priority means less focus on the older priorities. Here is a very clear example of all three being sacrificed for inclusiveness: https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1445200620340842496 https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1445200620340842496
- exolymph 5y ago> There’s a world of problems that need solving that people like Marc and his ilk could really move the needle on if they set their minds and put their resources to it. Meanwhile you're commenting on their activities rather than off moving the needle yourself. Why do you concern yourself with such trivialities, hmm?
- otterley 5y agohttps://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
- caddemon 5y agoCalling into question a new Google Docs feature isn't some massively time consuming process. Suggesting that the time saved by ignoring the feature could lead to some real human improvement is about as stupid as suggesting that the time saved by ignoring the criticism of the feature could lead to some real human improvement. I find it funny OP did not question if the time spent implementing the feature could have been better directed elsewhere. Only the much shorter time spent criticizing it. And now on a meta level it is okay to spend time questioning the criticism apparently. Makes it seem like the underlying concern has nothing to do with "directing energy elsewhere".
- otterley 5y agoWith great power comes great responsibility.
- exolymph 5y agoMy point is that your putative premise is disingenuous, as the other commenter kindly explained to you.
- nullc 5y agoIf it were actually narrowed to highlighting phrases that might cause offense to sizable populations it would probably be pretty useful! E.g. It might warn a speaker of british english that their text "Remember to bring some fags" is likely to be misunderstood in a rather unfortunate manner. The fact that it alerts _landlord_, however, suggests to me that its false positives will deprive it of most of its utility and that people will either turn it off (/ignore it) or will slavishly follow it and write confusing or even offensive text as a result.
- 3qz 5y ago> Don’t rich people have better things to do than incite others over trivialities? I think everyone in the comments can agree with this.