12 ms·

It's authoritarian and the new heresy, full stop. It's no different than evangelicals who try to impose their morality on everyone else. "That word is sinful. H

• paulgb 5y ago
  Oh, come on. It's not telling you what to change, it's giving you suggestions. Even the suggestions can be turned off. Most paying customers of Google are using it for business communications. This is a useful feature for them. Language (like everything) has become politicized, so people have a stronger reaction to this than when Word added grammar suggestions back in the day, but it's basically the same feature and Microsoft had a more dominant market position then than Google does now. (Full disclosure, I'm a former Googler, but that has little to do with this)
  • fknorangesite 5y ago
    > Language (like everything) has become politicized It wasn't ever not politicized.
    • paulgb 5y ago
      You're right. Maybe I should have said hyper-politicized.
  • lin83 5y ago
    > It's not telling you what to change, it's giving you suggestions. By giving you suggestions it's telling you that it thinks you are wrong. There is no way around that. It's a judgement plain and simple and that changes people's behaviour. > Even the suggestions can be turned off. Let's be honest. No one changes the defaults. > Language (like everything) has become politicized, ANd now my word editor is picking a side...
    • otterley 5y ago
      Can you give an example of where it is making a clearly bad suggestion, and what the adverse impact of adopting it would be?
      • mr_toad 5y ago
        Imagine working on a tax policy and having a proposed tax on “landlords” changed to a proposed tax on “property owners”. If that slipped through and was made public it could be a career limiting mistake.
        • camdat 5y ago
          Imagine working on a tax policy and having a proposed tax on "moles" changed to a proposed tax on "holes". If that slipped through and was made public it could be a career limiting mistake. Thankfully HN wasn't around when spell-check was introduced.
      • vimy 5y ago
        I don't know if it's on Google's list, would surprise me if it wasn't, but most Latinos find Latinx offensive. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latinx-offends-or-bothers-them-here-s-ncna1285916 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latin...
        • lukeschlather 5y ago
          That poll says most prefer Hispanic, it also says most do not find Latinx offensive. It also seems like a bit of a push poll since it doesn't ask any questions about whether or not they find "Latino" offensive. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/hispanic-voters-latinx-term-523776 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/hispanic-voters-lat...
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
          • 5y ago
  • ipaddr 5y ago
    Proper english grammar and left leaning political grammar are very different examples. If Microsoft introduced religious grammar suggestions it might offend a few people and provide benefits to others.
    • paulgb 5y ago
      > Proper english grammar That there is such a thing as “proper english grammar” is itself inherently contentious and political. DFW's review of Authority and American Usage unpacks this a bit, if I recall. It's hard to find online because it's still under copyright, but I found this: https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWAuthorityAndAmericanUsage2005.pdf https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWAuthorityAndAmericanU...
      • DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        With all due respect to descriptivists, when engaging in any sort of formal communication (written or spoken), prescriptive grammar matters. There are "proper" and "improper" ways of communicating on a formal level. "Ain't" is a perfectly normal construction in some dialects of English, but if you use it in a formal setting, people will notice and will think it's strange. It could be useful for a product like Google Docs to tell you not to use dialectal grammar like "ain't." If you're writing a formal document, you probably want to avoid that kind of language. However, if Google Docs goes beyond that and starts telling you to replace completely normal words like "blacklist" with woke alternatives like "blocklist," that feels more like an attempt to establish some sort of religious orthodoxy. It gives the same vibes as if Google Docs were to start trying to push Evangelical religious sensibilities on its users. It's not helpful, unless you think your audience is extremely uptight and you want to avoid upsetting them.
        • JoshTriplett 5y ago
          Descriptivist language can absolutely describe things like "ain't", by saying "here's what it means, and also here's how you'll be perceived if you say it". Similarly, descriptivist language can tell you what people mean when they say "irregardless", and also tell you that it's commonly perceived as incorrect usage. (That's more useful than just saying "that's not a word".) You can look up a slur in the dictionary, and you'll find it there, along with some history and context and how the word comes across to people. Descriptivist language includes "how formal is this", "how offensive is this", "how correct is this", and so on. It's useful, especially for people who aren't already steeped in cultural norms, to have a reference for "how might I come across if I say this". Words simultaneously communicate meaning and connotation, and it's helpful to understand both the meaning and the connotation. People aren't going to misunderstand the author of a text that says "blacklist"; they're going to understand just fine, perhaps including ways that the author would prefer not to have been perceived, or perhaps in ways the author intends to be perceived. Tooling like this won't change the minds of people who are determined to be offensive (with or without the added assertions that they don't think it should be considered offensive). The point is to inform people how they may come across. It would be incorrect to say "this word is universally considered offensive", just as it would be incorrect to not label the word at all; it'd be more correct to say "this word's status is [disputed/transitional], with [an increased trend towards being considered non-inclusive], and consequent [doubling down by conservative language users]; consider avoiding due to any or all of offense, controversy, or politics".
• lin83 5y ago
  Finally someone gets it. Imagine if Google was dominated by religious conservatives and their "inappropriate" language suggestions flagged "gay parents" or "pro-choice" as 'wrong' by default.
  • bombcar 5y ago
    The current threat to imagine is Musk buying Google or something.
    • lin83 5y ago
      I can imagine a ridiculous Black Mirror-like scenario in which a Tesla suggests that instead of driving to a Bernie Sanders event as planned, that the driver go to a conservative one instead. After all, Tesla could decide that Sanders' politics are inappropriate and harmful (to society/its bottom line).
      • bombcar 5y ago
        It's fun to begin to think about how much "soft power" companies have in ways we don't even expect. If Apple Maps decides to route traffic down a different street than normal, that could have substantial effects on business on that street. We like to think we make informed rational decisions at every point in our life, but we don't; the inputs matter a lot and companies control more of those than we would want to admit.
  • hairofadog 5y ago
    Imagine if the actual government was dominated by religious conservatives and they tried to make it illegal to discuss "gay parents" in schools or for doctors to discuss abortions with their patients.
    • johnnyanmac 5y ago
      At least the government is and will be challenged by the judicial system... eventually. Not fast enough, but it's being challenged as we speak. Tech oligarchies don't have such restrictions. It's almost scarier.
• thrwy_ywrht 5y ago
  > It's no different than evangelicals who try to impose their morality on everyone else Are you trying to suggest that there aren't certain words it's inappropriate to use in certain types of writing?
  • dogman144 5y ago
    Are you suggesting it is Google's job to enforce it?
    • serenitylater 5y ago
      They’re not enforcing shit, they’re just letting people know that the word can have a negative connotation. This could be extremely helpful for a newer English speaker, someone from another culture, or god forbid someone who just wants to use language that won’t make someone upset.
      • sacrosancty 5y ago
        Yep, it would have helped you to capitalize "God" and not offend Christians. Or better yet, not even written the word itself. You can use "G*d" to be safe.
        • dehrmann 5y ago
          It's still a proper noun. It's dicier when you capitalize "lord" or "his."
        • raxxorraxor 5y ago
          A bit sacrosanct perhaps? But it is technically correct. We should give Google a nudge that they include it.
      • teakettle42 5y ago
        > … they’re just letting people know that the word can have a negative connotation. A negative connotation amongst those whom subscribe to a very specific religious dogma. > … god forbid someone who just wants to use language that won’t make someone upset. Clearly “upsetting people” is not the metric. It’s only considered a problem if you upset the people privileged under your particular ideology.
• nvr219 5y ago
  It is so different from evangelicals who try to impose their morality that I don't even know where to start.
  • teakettle42 5y ago
    You could try to start. Otherwise, why even comment?
    • mxkopy 5y ago
      Engaging trolls gives them only more power. But for the sake of hope in good faith, I can try. Evangelicals could resort to extreme measures (violence, unwanted proselytization, bad faith arguments, etc.) If you ask them to shut up, they'll just not do so or leave entirely. This is just a feature you could turn off. The rest of Docs would still be usable. Yall are really getting inflamed over nothing. There are better ways to use your energy. You can just turn the feature off or not use the product. Comparing this to evangelicism dilutes the harm actually caused by evangelicals.
  • raxxorraxor 5y ago
    How so? Please explain and start anywhere.
• Karawebnetwork 5y ago
  It's simply adding context to words and giving you the option to change it. This is useful for speaking on the international scene. It is impossible to be aware of all possibly harmful words. Take for example "Eskimo". Many people outside Canada would not know that the people who it is used on prefers to be called Inuit or better yet the names of their own language (Inupiaq or Yupik). But to a Canadian, this would be a glaring mistake as many consider "Eskimo" to be insulting. If I am writing a support text for that demographic and use the wrong word, I will be happy that my text editor adds a little hint that says "Are you sure you want to use this word? It might make people angry." The alternative is to use the dictionary search feature on every single noun. I can think of a lot of such words. This is heavy and slow, so tech comes to the rescue. This feature already exists on a lot of spellchecker.
  • DoneWithAllThat 5y ago
    It’s not “context”. Context implies a universal truth or law of nature level of absolute. This is a highly subjective, fundamentalist, quasi-religious definition of “context”.
    • Karawebnetwork 5y ago
      A squiggly line under "Eskimos" that says: "The name Eskimo is considered derogatory because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean 'eater of raw meat." is a historical and sociological context. If you are writing about the uses of the word "Eskimo", you click "skip this word" and the word will remain in your text. If the added context has you believe that using the word in your text might anger the very demographic you are writing a text on, you click "replace word". If you choose to ignore the context and keep using the word at the risk of angering the community you are writing about, you click "never show this again". But at this point, don't complain if people are angry at your text. That's it. I bet you can simply turn off the feature altogether like you can in other software.
      • hunterb123 5y ago
        It's word policing that doesn't take into account context, ie the person that it's being written for or how it's being used. It itself is not adding context, and it should be disabled by default if added at all. If PC nazis want this they can install an extension or enable it. I don't need Google to give me moral lessons or be the arbiter of truth and feelings. Dear Google docs team, just stick to spelling and grammar checking in your word processor, thank you. Maybe next they can add a Clippy with a neckbeard that pops up and says "ackhtually... this is bad, would you like to censor yourself?" It's not about feelings, it's about conditioning self censorship. EDIT: @madeofpalk, spelling is not subjective, grammar is but it's a style guide based on structure. PC rules change on a dime based on feelings and politics. But yes you can be a grammar nazi and a PC nazi. Generally the two overlap because it's a certain type of zealot personality.
• sneak 5y ago
  > It's authoritarian and the new heresy, full stop. This would be true if there is no way to disable it. I'd bet you any amount of money it's an optional feature that you can simply turn off. You're being unnecessarily hyperbolic.
  • bestbuyer__ 5y ago
    Most people never bother to change the default behavior of the software they use. This change will influence the behavior of billions of people around the world and meaningfully change our reality, so it's not as simple as just disabling the feature on your own computer.
    • sneak 5y ago
      I agree that defaults matter, and I agree that this is an attempt to shape culture. I don't agree that it's authoritarian, because if you don't like it you can turn it off. It's no more authoritarian than opt-in-by-default (aka opt-out) for organ donation that some countries do; i.e. not authoritarian.