“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

Bob24

wes wrote: »

You sweet summer child, look into the concept of "at will" employment in the US. "At will" employment is something that conservatives in the US are big fans of, and btw they had cause to fire him, as his "manifesto" violated employee guidelines. He has 0 ground to sue, and you can be damn sure that Google checked with there lawyers before letting him go.

Any lawsuit would be laughed out of court.

I doubt he has any serious grounds as well.

The worry for google is more in terms of brand image.

If they start to appear too political oriented they will start losing trust from people who have different views as they have a lot of influence over the way we access information.

As opposed to let's say some newspapers or TV channels, if is not in Google's business to appear as politically biased.

suicide_circus

While this isn't literally supression of freedom of speech, termination of employment is certainly de facto suppression and seems to be the current modus operandi to keep descenters in line. We've done away with the Spanish Inquisition and McCarthyism but those who don't toe the line can still be brought to book by loss of earnings and being pilloried by the good towns folk via the media.

Bob24

Sonics2k wrote: »

They are not censoring him, they have simply stated they do not wish to have someone with his particular views as part of their company.

What you wrote here could be a definition of censorship. I could just change the subject and complement in your sentence and write in the exact same way "the Chinese governement have simply stated they do not wish to have someone with his particular views as part of their press". Not censorship?

Censoring some views is ok but if they can't even recognise they are doing it they have a problem (but I think they do).

Dyr

wes wrote: »

You sweet summer child, look into the concept of "at will" employment in the US. "At will" employment is something that conservatives in the US are big fans of, and btw they had cause to fire him, as his "manifesto" violated employee guidelines. He has 0 ground to sue, and you can be damn sure that Google checked with there lawyers before letting him go.

Any lawsuit would be laughed out of court.

I'm probably twice your age kid

Read up on the NLRA. Discussion of terms and conditons among employees is one of the few protections the yanks enjoy. Now unlike yourself I'm not an expert on US employment law (and that's what you are right?) but I'm sure a clever legal team would fancy a crack at it.

Google will have done the sums on how much he can soak them for in court versus appeasing the calls for his head and decided it's chump change versus the cost of not sacrificing him on the altar of diversity.

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

I doubt he has any serious grounds as well.

The worry for google is more in terms of brand image.

If they start to appear too political oriented they will start losing trust from people who have different views as they have a lot of influence over the way we access information.

As opposed to let's say some newspapers or TV channels, if is not in Google's business to appear as politically biased.

Well, the math seems pretty simple to me. Women are normally just over half the population, and are far larger proportion of the populace that extreme Anti-feminist men, the only group who I can see who would be bothered enough to boycott them.

I just don't see them taking there videos off Youtube and destroying there own income and outlet in one fell swoop. Google wouldn't even notice them abandoning there platform. Also, they will find a lot of tech companies would similarly have no truck with attacks on Women, as again they are over half the population, they can't afford to alienate Women either.

suicide_circus

^^^^Diversity be praised!!!

Dyr

Sonics2k wrote: »

Have you actually read what he was saying?

Yep sure have.

Has anyone authored a rebuttal? Bear in mind that removing the wikipedia entries he cited is not a rebuttal

Sonics2k

Bob24 wrote: »

What you wrote here could be a definition of censorship. I could just change the subject and complement in your sentence and write in the exact same way "the Chinese governement have simply stated they do not wish to have someone with his particular views as part of their press". Not censorship?

Censoring some views is ok but if they can't even recognise they are doing it they have a problem (but I think they do).

Well no, you just gave the main difference.

The Chinese Government compared to Google. One is literally a government, the other is a private company.

Again. Freedom of Speech is that Government will not silence you or your opinion. It has -nothing- to do with a private organisation.

Boards.ie has no Freedom of Speech.

Sonics2k

Bambi wrote: »

Yep sure have.

Has anyone authored a rebuttal? Bear in mind that removing the wikipedia entries he cited is not a rebuttal

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788


His main and essential claim is that women can't code, he's wrong. He has no evidence for this.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Well, the math seems pretty simple to me. Women are normally just over half the population, and are far larger proportion of the populace that extreme Anti-feminist men, the only group who I can see who would be bothered enough to boycott them.

I just don't see them taking there videos off Youtube and destroying there own income and outlet in one fell swoop. Google wouldn't even notice them abandoning there platform. Also, they will find a lot of tech companies would similarly have no truck with attacks on Women, as again they are over half the population, they can't afford to alienate Women either.

Pretty much what people would have said to explain why Trump had no chance of being elected. 42% of women voted for him.

wes

Bambi wrote: »

I'm probably twice your age kid

Age is just a number :P.

Bambi wrote: »

Read up on the NLRA. Discussion of terms and conditons among employees is one of the few protections the yanks enjoy. Now unlike yourself I'm not an expert on US employment law (and that's what you are right?) but I'm sure a clever legal team would fancy a crack at it.

You actually think that Google didn't consult there army of lawyers, when firing this guy? He doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially when he is based in a "at will" state. I don't need to be an expert, to understand that a big company wouldn't take a decision like this without consulting there lawyers. Its common practice.

Again read up on at will employment:

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

I don't need to be an expert to understand the above, and you have yet to provide on what grounds what Google did was illegal. Just vague stuff about "clever legal" teams.

Bambi wrote: »

Google will have done the sums on how much he can soak them for in court versus appeasing the calls for his head and decided it's chump change versus the cost of not sacrificing him on the altar of diversity.

What ground does to have to sue for exactly? They fired him with cause, and the poor fool, gave them all the ammo they need to do so.

Triceratops Ballet

Bob24 wrote: »

What you wrote here could be a definition of censorship.

Censoring some views is ok but if they can't even recognise they are doing it they have a problem (but I think they do).

So you're saying that companies are obligated to keep staff on board who breach employee guidelines?

Why? he signed a contract, he knows the rules, he broke them.
It's a disciplinary issue, and google acted on it. If I circulated a letter advocating repealing the 8th round all my colleagues without authorisation, I'd fully expect disciplinary action to be taken against me, regardless of any logic or facts in my statements!

If google's culture is so morally galling to you that you need to write a 3000 word manifesto, get yourself a blog, do it anonymously or non anonymously, or quit and then publish it.

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

Pretty much what people would have said to explain why Trump had no chance of being elected. 42% of women voted for him.

Google is worldwide and not just the US btw....

RDM_83 again

seamus wrote: »

This.

If you read the thing it comes across as a pseudo-scientific analysis of social dynamics, attempting to derive engineering solutions to social and emotional problems.

This is especially apparent in his summation of women, "on average". Apparently they're more neurotic, value feelings over ideas and prefer to be agreeable rather than assertive.
He views these things as discrete, universal, measurable data points as opposed to fluid properties with causes and effects of their own.

Has anybody actually done a proper rebuttal of his arguments rather than simply "he's wrong about gender*". I am very much not convinced about some of his statements particularly as women tended to be quiet involved in the early days of IT and I have worked for women who can be just as analytical as men however it does seem that a lot of what I am reading is that your wrong because your wrong rather than, your wrong because X, Y and Z.

Male and Female brains are different on average, if you deny this your legitimizing many of the arguments relating to trans-genderism and would ironically be called out for being an unscientific bigot if we were having a different discussion.
I get that humans are incredibly neuro-plastic, and that there is a chicken and egg situation going on however outside of the fringiest of the fringe events (like feral children) I don't think I have ever heard anthropologists of a society/culture/tribe/ethnic group where there isn't significant gender differences.
Biological determinism and Evolutionary psychology have a very bad reputation in certain circles and much of the criticisms pointed at them are legitimate, however just because those fields have issues it shouldn't be denied that we are a sexually dimorphic species and we have been subject to the same process of evolution as every other organism on the planet, just because we have self awareness/conscious this doesn't erase millions of years

In reality I think a conversation worth having is that if an author argued for a greater representation of women within the company as biologically they bring useful skills such as caring and increased empathy that men tend to lack would they have been fired? A statement such as that has the same underlying problems yet IMO the result for the employee would be very different.

I would also point out I can show examples where differences in sex biology have been argued for in relation to employment roles quiet uncontroversially
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080414/full/news.2008.753.html
numerous other mainstream publications ran with these ideas and there was no outrage.

* I am lumping gender and sex in together for this

desertcircus

I can't believe anyone is surprised he got fired. He wrote three thousand words arguing that a sizeable chunk of his colleagues were inferior workers due to their gender. How in the name of all that is holy do you not get fired for that?

Bob24

Sonics2k wrote: »

Well no, you just gave the main difference.

The Chinese Government compared to Google. One is literally a government, the other is a private company.

Again. Freedom of Speech is that Government will not silence you or your opinion. It has -nothing- to do with a private organisation.

Boards.ie has no Freedom of Speech.

You might want to double check the definition of censorship. There is nothing saying it only applies to governements and can't be the work of a private organisation.

wes

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^Diversity be praised!!!

Its called business, your feelings don't matter to corporations. All they care about is there bottom line. Astonishing that people seem not to get that.

Dyr

Sonics2k wrote: »

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788


His main and essential claim is that women can't code, he's wrong. He has no evidence for this.

He wrote a fairly large document and you've inaccurately summed it up in one sentence.

I read that diatribe days ago, no rebuttal (clue: it actually says that there is no rebuttal in the very first bullet point. Angry dude emoting a lot about why the author should not have written anything in the first place.

It's all very SJW, drama and hysteria leading to a witch hunt

Sonics2k

Bob24 wrote: »

You might want to double check the definition of censorship. There is nothing saying it only applies to governements and can't be the work of a private organisation.

Uh

censorship
ˈsɛnsəʃɪp/Submit
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
"the regulation imposes censorship on all media"

Have you checked the definition yourself? Doesn't look like they've censored him. It's still totally possible to read his manifesto, it's out there on Google. He's not been banned from writing anything else in the future.

Oh, how about the definition of Freedom of Speech, in case you're having a tricky time with this.

noun
1.
the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Google is worldwide and not just the US btw....

These arguments apply across the western world although the have very much US based.

And the Middle East and Asia being much more conservative in general it would actually cause them more issues there.

Bob24

Sonics2k wrote: »

Have you checked the definition yourself? Doesn't look like they've censored him. It's still totally possible to read his manifesto, it's out there on Google. He's not been banned from writing anything else in the future.

Incorrect: the manifesto is gone from Google's intranet and it has been made pretty clear he or anyone isn't free to express this type of opinion within the company in the future.

And before you say he can say whatever he wants outside google I'll go back to my china exemple: I'm not free to publicly criticise the Chinese president within China but I am free to do so outside China. Does it mean China is not censoring me because I'm free to express my opinion elsewhere?

Chips Lovell

Even if you agree with this chap, you're away with the fairies if you think the number of f**ks given by Google customers will be more than zero.

Nermal

Sonics2k wrote: »

He's not been banned from writing anything else in the future.

'You can write anything you like, but we'll fire you if you write things we disagree with'

Not censorship at all (so long as one is independently wealthy).

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

These arguments apply across the western world although the have very much US based.

And the Middle East and Asia being much more conservative in general it would actually cause them more issues there.

You don't think Google caters there products for that part of the world? Also, I honestly doubt many in that part of the world will care (if they are even aware of it, I doubt the story will be a big deal in that part of the world). They will see it as a Western thing that doesn't concern them and go back to there own business. Unless it directly relates to them they won't care.

Sonics2k

Nermal wrote: »

'You can write anything you like, but we'll fire you if you write things we disagree with'

Not censorship at all (so long as one is independently wealthy).

Still not censorship.

If I got a job with Alive! magazine and started writing articles about how Abortion should be legal in Ireland and we should kick the Church out of Ireland, you can be damn sure I'd be fired.

Would you claim censorship then?

Dyr

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Even if you agree with this chap, you're away with the fairies if you think the number of f**ks given by Google customers will be more than zero.

America is currently polarizing itself like mental along political rupture lines, This is going to matter politically.

And the funny thing is that the identity politics pixies think this polarization is going to work out for them. :eek:

You'd imagine Donnie getting elected might have being a light bulb moment but no.

Sonics2k

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes your view would be censored by the magazine.

But it's not censorship. I'm still free to write the opinion in other places. The government has not stepped in to prevent me from doing so.

I am simply not writing the articles that match the narrative of their publication.

I used to work for O2, would it have been censorship if I got sacked for saying Vodafone was better?

edit: I see you deleted your comment, not sure why, but okay.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

You don't think Google caters there products for that part of the world? Also, I honestly doubt many in that part of the

It's not about adapting the products. It's more: does the company have an ideological filter in the way it processes and presents information?

Overall I would say no st the moment, but if it is clear that only some political opinions are allowed within its staff there is a risk of it happening. As long as everything is algorithmic and there is confidence that algorithms don't include political filters it's all fine. But as soon as you factor in human interventions (creating editorial content, selecting specific pieces of news to highlight them, deleting inappropriate content, etc) then if the staff is on average heavily biased towards certain views, that bias can creep into the products which will make them more or less attractive for different political groups (this is a natural thing for let's say a newspaper, but not so much for a tech company and I doubt Google would like to become a search engine for the liberal left whereas The Guardian is quite fine with being a newspaper of the liberal left because in their line of business it does make sense and there are also papers for the conservative right and so on ad they all know they are targeting a specific audience where Google aims at targeting everyone).

RDM_83 again

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Even if you agree with this chap, you're away with the fairies if you think the number of f**ks given by Google customers will be more than zero.

In a way your right this incident won't have any major impact on their customer base, are people going to shut down their gmail accounts and stop using android because of this.

However your underestimating the number of people that are "conservative", 49% of the US voted in Trump for example and even if you were conservative there is plenty not to like about him, what matters is the cumulative impact of these type of stories which build a picture of organizations that have massive social impact and ability to sway public opinion being unwelcome to having staff with political views that don't align with the views of the Democrats.

They do have to tread carefully about appearing to be deeply partisan as they will end up in front of various Government sub-committees and investigations as happens occasionally and these are currently Republican dominated, those members might be consciously or unconsciously willing to take a harder line with them if they feel like Google is "the enemy".

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

It's not about adapting the products. It's more: does the company have an ideological filter in the way it processes and presents information?

Overall I would say no st the moment, but if it is clear that only some political opinions are allowed within its staff there is a risk of it happening. As long as everything is algorithmic and there is confidence that algorithms don't include political filters it's all find, but as soon as you factor in human interventions (creating editorial content, selecting specific pieces of news, deleting inappropriate content) than if the staff is biased it can creep into the products.

There is already a bias at Google, and that is what there advertisers want. Google is primarily an ad company and if advertisers don't want to associated with certain types of materials, then what they say goes.

Google actually lost a lot of advertisers recently, after ads from the likes of Pepsi appeared along side various types of extremist content. Those types of videos no longer receive ads.

Again, Google does what makes them money. They don't care about anyone's politics if it hurts there bottom line.