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

wes

LionelNashe wrote: »

So what? Just because Google fired the guy doesn't mean that they can or will block him from using their platform to make himself a few hundred grand a year. Even that Inforwars guy has a youtube channel that hasn't been shut down.

If he is suing them, they might do exactly that. Also, he would have to be an idiot to use a Google platform, when he is suing them.

LionelNashe

wes wrote: »

If he is suing them, they might do exactly that. Also, he would have to be an idiot to use a Google platform, when he is suing them.

No they wouldn't, and no he wouldn't.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

If he is suing them, they might do exactly that. Also, he would have to be an idiot to use a Google platform, when he is suing them.

Don't think it would be smart of them. It would get them some headlines for censoring him a second time and he would get even more views on whichever rival platform he moves to.

But as you said it would be smarter of him to stay clear from Google's platform if he is suing them. First thing I'd do is migrating all my personal data to competing services, deleting all I can from Google (though I'm sure they have access to backups) and log out of the account forever amd l' all cookies to make sure my activity isn't namely being tracked by their plateform. He could occasionally log into a new account which is used for nothing else and post a YouTube video though.

wes

Bob24 wrote: »

Don't think it would be smart of them. It would get them some headlines for censoring him a second time.

Sure, they may just turn off ads and blame the algorithms instead .

Bob24 wrote: »

But as you said it would be smarter of him to stay clear from Google's platform if he is suing them. First think I'd do is migrating all my personal data to competing services, deleting all I can from Google (though I'm sure they have access to backups) and log out of the account forever to make sure my activity isn't tracked.

Yeah, that would be the smart thing to do. Giving Google so much personal info, while your suing them, would be one of the dumbest things someone could do.

wes

Some more info on his chances in regards to a legal case:

GOOGLE MANIFESTO AUTHOR JUST MIGHT HAVE A LEGAL CASE



Some interesting bits:

California is an "at-will" state, meaning Google can dismiss an employee for almost any reason. However, Damore says that before he was fired, he filed a complaint, formally known as a charge, with the National Labor Relations Board, which administers some aspects of federal labor law. Under the National Labor Relations Act, it's against federal law to fire someone in retaliation for filing a complaint to the board, lawyers say.

If he can prove he was fired for a complaint, then Google is in trouble.

However, looks like the timing for that maybe off:

A person at Google familiar with the matter said Damore's dismissal could not have been retaliation for his NLRB complaint because the company only learned of the complaint after Damore was fired.

Also, even if he has a case (and wins), his claims about his qualifications discussed earlier could bite him in the ass:

Rishi Bhandari, a partner at New York law firm Mandel Bhandari who previously practiced in California, says Google's position will likely be that it fired Damore because his memo antagonized coworkers and contained factual inaccuracies, making it unprofessional. If Google had previously warned Damore about Code of Conduct or performance issues, that would bolster the company's defense, Bhandari says. He says the company could even cite reasons for dismissing Damore that it discovers after his firing; such evidence could limit any award to Damore if a court finds that Google did retaliate against him.

So legally not quite cut and dry as I taught, but still an up hill battle for Damore imo.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Sure, they may just turn off ads and blame the algorithms instead .

Let's not keep assuming he is just driven by money through.

Yes he has to feed himself alright, but his attitude publishing this thing was more one of someone who is ready to take risks to get his point across (some will say he's just stupid, but I personally doubt he didn't realise this was controversial and could potentially cause him trouble). YouTube is probably the best video medium to do that for an individual.

Hastentoadd

As a company employee you are paid to do a job. Your opinion, while valued on a company product, is not valued on a political stance. If you dont like the values of the company then move job. As an employee you have no right to publicize a viewpoint about your employer. If you feel strongly about the issue you bring it to a tribunal. You certainly dont voice your opinions in such a naive fashion.

I may or may not agree with what this person suggests. I certainly do not agree on how this person put their feelings forward. With any semblance of intelligence, this person could have brought the argument into a domain where he/she could have provided change. Instead they got fired for their juvenile behaviour. And may they learn from it. Its not about keeping your mouth shut. Its about knowing when to open it

suicide_circus

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/larissa-nolan-political-correctness-will-hurt-us-all-in-the-end-1.3180394?mode=amp

Hector Savage

https://youtu.be/sGBM47Bg3Nc

They even have a Vice President of "Diversity" ? what the f*ck is that ? they actually get paid millions for this **** ?

Google - Hire the best people, and the diversity will sort itself out, great people everywhere!!!

This situation is Orwellian

Bob24

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/larissa-nolan-political-correctness-will-hurt-us-all-in-the-end-1.3180394?mode=amp

Glad to read this in a paper which is amongst the worst offenders in the country. At least some people in there realise it and are not happy about it.

Having said that publishing her piece might just be an excuse not to change anything (some of the liberal elite also understands what's going on but as opposed to her they are quietly rejoicing about it and encouraging it).

Bob24

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://youtu.be/sGBM47Bg3Nc

They even have a Vice President of "Diversity" ? what the f*ck is that ? they actually get paid millions for this **** ?

Google - Hire the best people, and the diversity will sort itself out, great people everywhere!!!

This situation is Orwellian

It won't happen anytime soon at Google as they have a very young workforce, but I'm actually waiting to see what happens when gender imbalance goes the other way in other instutitions.

Take universities globally: a large part of the older staff is masculine, so in many parts of academia there is an implicit or explicit priority given to women when hiring junior lecturers in order to reach an overall figure of 50/50 as soon as possible.

But what happens when all the old professors start to retire and the next generation is now a majority of women? (I.e. the retirement will mechanically create imbalance) Then you are in a vicious cirlcle whereby if you still want to maintain balance you now have to give priority to men. So in the long run the original obsession with addressing gender imbalance as fast as possible condemned you to make one's gender a desired qualification for the jobs you advertise - which is exactly what you were trying to avoid in the first place!

suicide_circus

^^^^for some reason I don't foresee a scramble to reset the gender gap if females become the majority in academia/business.

Bob24

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^for some reason I don't foresee a scramble to reset the gender gap if females become the majority in academia/business.

As I said ... I'm waiting to see what happens :-)

Hastentoadd

Bob24 wrote: »

It won't happen anytime soon at Google as they have a very young workforce, but I'm actually waiting to see what happens when gender imbalance goes the other way in other instutitions.

Take universities globally: a large part of the older staff is masculine, so in many parts of academia there is an implicit or explicit priority given to women when hiring junior lecturers in order to reach an overall figure of 50/50 as soon as possible.

But what happens when all the old professors start to retire and the next generation is now a majority of women? (I.e. the retirement will mechanically create imbalance) Then you are in a vicious cirlcle whereby if you still want to maintain balance you now have to give priority to men. So in the long run the original obsession with addressing gender imbalance as fast as possible condemned you to make one's gender a desired qualification for the jobs you advertise - which is exactly what you were trying to avoid in the first place!

As the email clearly points out, a womans brain would not be a good fit for an intellectual position.

strandroad

Looks like his issues with women started well before Google's diversity programmes.

http://gizmodo.com/fired-google-memo-writer-took-part-in-controversial-s-1797658885

According to emails provided to Gizmodo, Andrew Murray and Tim Mitchison, the co-directors of the Systems Biology Program at Harvard—which Damore attended for two years before leaving the program and starting his career at Google—issued a formal apology to a number of students for a student skit performed at the 2012 Systems Biology Program Retreat. According to two sources, Damore was the primary performer in the skit.

In an email dated October 15, 2012, nine days after the conclusion of the retreat, Murray and Mitchison wrote that the skit “presented material that offended many members of our community” and emphasized that even in the context of a humorous skit, “targeting any group within the program that can be defined by gender, by ethnicity, by sexual orientation, or by religious orientation, is never acceptable.”
...
A source who spoke under the condition of anonymity because they did not want their name associated with the current controversy surrounding Damore said that Damore participated in the writing, arranging, casting, and performing of the skit, which they described as “sexist” in nature. According to the source, a short humorous skit is typically performed by students during the annual retreat, and while they described the skits as typically a “roast,” they emphasized that “the goal is not to offend.” Damore participated in the writing of the skit, along with other program students, but according to two sources, Damore was the primary performer during the skit when it was performed. The source noted that in the “particular year in which James played a role organizing, [the skit] was particularly offensive to women.”

Three sources allege that Damore told what they characterized as a masturbation-related joke during the course of the performance, which fell flat and offended some in the audience. However, two sources attributed the backlash to the performance not to any malice on the part of Damore, but instead to his awkward delivery.

Hastentoadd

working for google is an interesting challenge. their opinion is constantly in flux.

TheDoc

Bob24 wrote: »

That's the crazy thing here: people can't even agree on what he did or did not say (I also don't see any clear pledge against diversity or insinuations that women are inferior, but clearly some people do though I don't believe that have quoted what exact statements they have a problem with).

Not even agreeing in what the message is kind of prevents from having any productive discussion about wether it was appropriate or not :-s

It was not appropriate.

There is no discussion here on the appropriateness

TheDoc

JRant wrote: »

Not at all, he clear states there are differences 'on average' between the sexes and uses the big 5 personality traits to explain these. This is not some basement dweller spouting about d'wimmins. His is citing we'll established findings that there are indeed differences between the sexes ' on average'.

The mistake he made was thinking Google was diverse enough to tolerate anything that goes against the group-think mentality

The mistake he made was thinking that sharing internally a document that belittles and discredits female colleagues in certain roles, and creates a hostile environment for woman, along with making himself isolated, was ok.

I'm questioning if the people perplexed at how he was fired, have a)Actually ever worked in a job b) Ever worked in a diverse office environment

angryIreGamer

everyone knows women have tiny brains and cannot problem solve, cannot partake in construction or mechanical environments because they are biologically wired to only be able concentrate on things like raising a family, or education, or cooking.

Its been super scientifically proven, again and again:
Link1
Link2

conorhal

strandroad wrote: »

Looks like his issues with women started well before Google's diversity programmes.

http://gizmodo.com/fired-google-memo-writer-took-part-in-controversial-s-1797658885

Really? because to me it looks like he was part of a comedy skit 5 years ago that had a crap joke about **** in it which caused 'somebody' to clutch their pearls.
Yez are gettting pretty desperate in your witch-hunt. But sure, why not 'Gizmodo: Proof that Google Employee Hates Women!' (story below) :rolleyes:

If somebody was to pour through 5 years of your internet history, posts and interactions do you think there's a chance you might have made a crass joke about **** somewhere that would justify your being attacked by the press as a hater of women?

Frankly, it really says something about this witch hunt that the blokes attackers are pouring over his CV and college skits to justify firing the guy but have little to say about the actual document.
I know Arthur Miller's 'The Crucible', about the Salem witch trials, was a thinly veiled allegory about McCarthyism, but if he were writing it today I'd say it would have some pointed things to say about the left.

Dyr

TheDoc wrote: »

The mistake he made was thinking that sharing internally a document that belittles and discredits female colleagues in certain roles, and creates a hostile environment for woman, along with making himself isolated, was ok.

I'm questioning if the people perplexed at how he was fired, have a)Actually ever worked in a job b) Ever worked in a diverse office environment

He did what now?

You'll have to quote the specific sections of his paper that did the above, I'm not rereading with my outrage sensor pumped to the max.

Bob24

TheDoc wrote: »

There is no discussion here on the appropriateness

Yeah that's what I said: people tag it as inappropriate without referencing the actual document and explaining why. It precisely is a way to refuse any discussion.

TheDoc

Bob24 wrote: »

Yeah that what I said: people tag it as inappropriate without referencing the actual document and explaining why. It precisely is a way to refuse any discussion.

No no, I'm saying there is no discussion to be had. There is no entertaining this document.

If he was submitting a paper for some study, or if he was part of some arranged debate then fair enough.

But there is no debate or discussion to be had, when as an employee you send a memo like that out to everyone. You are an idiot, and really don't appear fit to work with others

TheDoc

Bambi wrote: »

He did what now?

You'll have to quote the specific sections of his paper that did the above, I'm not rereading with my outrage sensor pumped to the max.

If you didn't grasp that from your first reading, never mind subsequent readings, I'm not going to entertain explaining it to you or educating you

Bob24

TheDoc wrote: »

No no, I'm saying there is no discussion to be had. There is no entertaining this document.

If he was submitting a paper for some study, or if he was part of some arranged debate then fair enough.

But there is no debate or discussion to be had, when as an employee you send a memo like that out to everyone. You are an idiot, and really don't appear fit to work with others

A "memo like that" doesn't mean anything though if you don't quote it to explain what you mean by "like that".

Same as saying it is inappropriate - it doesn't mean anything if you don't clearly lay out why.
If you're saying any memo expressing a personal opinion is inappropriate fair enough no need to discuss the details of the document, but then there must be many other ones shared everyday within google which are not flagged as inappropriate so there is a bit of a double standard.
If however you're saying the specific content is inappropriate and at the same time you say "there is no entertaining this document" you are basically saying your are refusing to explain the facts your opinion is based on.

Dyr

TheDoc wrote: »

If you didn't grasp that from your first reading, never mind subsequent readings, I'm not going to entertain explaining it to you or educating you

If it's that obvious then it should be a fairly handy job to quote the relevant offending sections. Confusing that you refuse to

conorhal

TheDoc wrote: »

No no, I'm saying there is no discussion to be had. There is no entertaining this document.

If he was submitting a paper for some study, or if he was part of some arranged debate then fair enough.

But there is no debate or discussion to be had, when as an employee you send a memo like that out to everyone. You are an idiot, and really don't appear fit to work with others

Did he send it to 'everybody'? I see no evidence of that, just a mention that it 'went viral within the company'.

Well, I'd love to see the reaction on the left if a company fired a few employees for wearing their 'repeal' hoodies to work...

Something tells me a double standard would apply..

Dyr

Bob24 wrote: »

A "memo like that" doesn't mean anything though if you don't quote it to explain what you mean by "like that".

Same as saying it is inappropriate - it doesn't mean anything if you don't clearly lay out why.
If you're saying any memo expressing a personal opinion is inappropriate, fair enough but then there must be many other ones shared everyday within google which are not flagged as inappropriate so there is a bit of a double standard.
If however you're saying the specific content is inappropriate and at the same time you say "there is no entertaining this document" you are basically saying your are refusing to explain the facts your opinion is based on.

You're seeing two different criticisms here.

One is based on the merits of the piece itself, which you will get zero attempts to engage with from these quarters.

The other is based on the authors motivation and lack of judgement in producing and sharing it. If you work at google you might have an idea as to the mechanisms and culture of debate they have. I don't work at google and neither does anyone here I guess so all we can do is speculate.

Grayson

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm questioning if the people perplexed at how he was fired, have a)Actually ever worked in a job b) Ever worked in a diverse office environment

That's just it. It's bloody stupid to do that kind of thing.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/larissa-nolan-political-correctness-will-hurt-us-all-in-the-end-1.3180394?mode=amp

fantastic article and it shows up Lena as a moron yet again, thanks for sharing

Hastentoadd

Google is a fascinating company. Its search engine is predicated on stealing personal details. And then it decides it has a moral compass?

BrokenArrows

TheDoc wrote: »

...
But there is no debate or discussion to be had, when as an employee you send a memo like that out to everyone. You are an idiot, and really don't appear fit to work with others

He didnt sent it to everybody. He sent it to a select few people who then proceeded to forward it and it eventually went outside the company.

silverharp

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Google is a fascinating company. Its search engine is predicated on stealing personal details. And then it decides it has a moral compass?

and using gender differences to sell advertising :pac:

BrokenArrows

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Google is a fascinating company. Its search engine is predicated on stealing personal details. And then it decides it has a moral compass?

stealing personal details?

Google doesnt steal personal details. Everything google has was willingly given to them by their users.

If people dont read the terms and conditions of the apps when the sign up then thats their problem.

You wouldnt accuse your phone company of stealing your money when they start taking direct debits from your account because you didnt read the terms of your phone contract.

Just because google are offering financially free services it doesnt mean it is actually free.

Ralf and Florian

Bob24 wrote: »

Glad to read this in a paper which is amongst the worst offenders in the country. At least some people in there realise it and are not happy about it.

Having said that publishing her piece might just be an excuse not to change anything (some of the liberal elite also understands what's going on but as opposed to her they are quietly rejoicing about it and encouraging it).

Wait for a witchhunt like this one in response to another recent Irish Times article.

https://www.facebook.com/sarah.clancy.520/posts/10156789213617837

Bob24

BrokenArrows wrote: »

stealing personal details?

Google doesnt steal personal details. Everything google has was willingly given to them by their users.

If people dont read the terms and conditions of the apps when the sign up then thats their problem.

You wouldnt accuse your phone company of stealing your money when they start taking direct debits from your account because you didnt read the terms of your phone contract.

Just because google are offering financially free services it doesnt mean it is actually free.

Even if you don't have an account with them they'll track you using cookies and have a pretty good idea of your browsing patterns (as long as boards uses google ads, google analytics, or google social sharing they would for exemple know you visited this thread). That is without you having ever accepted any T&Cs.

Also at some point a standard was implemented for web browsers to have a "do not track" option which would explicitly tell websites you don't want your online activity to be tracked, and Google (along with other) chose that their plateform would ignore these clear requests from people.

And again keep in mind I'm not only talking about browsing Goggle's website but any website on which there is the salightest google presence (which is a majority of websites you visit so an ad served by google on a webpage would be enough - or just an innocent looking "share on google+" button.

Now you can say you have no problem with them doing these things, but if you genuinely think Google is only tracking people expressly agreed to be, you might want to document yourself about what they do.

Hastentoadd

BrokenArrows wrote: »

stealing personal details?

Google doesnt steal personal details. Everything google has was willingly given to them by their users.

If people dont read the terms and conditions of the apps when the sign up then thats their problem.

You wouldnt accuse your phone company of stealing your money when they start taking direct debits from your account because you didnt read the terms of your phone contract.

Just because google are offering financially free services it doesnt mean it is actually free.

It is so bizarre and obviously rational what Google is up to. I did enjoy the film 'The Circle'. It kinda hit a few notes. But then drone technology, AI technology, Google knows no bounds. It is incredible, and disturbing, the technology Google are developing at the moment for the defence forces. There is no limit and as I said no moral compass. The compass is directed at money. And thats ok. You build a business to generate money. But you can stuff your moral compass where it is rightfully deserved Google.

Dyr

Hastentoadd wrote: »

Google is a fascinating company. Its search engine is predicated on stealing personal details. And then it decides it has a moral compass?

Do a google image search for "white couple"

The results are fascinating

Hastentoadd

Bambi wrote: »

Do a google image search for "white couple"

The results are fascinating

I don't use google anything. You are welcome to post the results on boards. I refuse to offer my details online freely as many kids these days do. I am one of the last of the old bunch who stands up against this muck they call modern life !!!

Wibbs

Bambi wrote: »

Do a google image search for "white couple"

The results are fascinating

Just did. Yeah, does smell extremely slanted alright. Did a search for "black couple" and got what one would expect.

silverharp

or type in "history european people"

Wibbs

silverharp wrote: »

or type in "history european people"

What the actual hell?

Venom

silverharp wrote: »

or type in "history european people"

From what I'v read, that result is down to search engine manipulation by some group trying to show how easy it is to screw with Google's search results.

jackofalltrades

strandroad wrote: »

Looks like his issues with women started well before Google's diversity programmes.

http://gizmodo.com/fired-google-memo-writer-took-part-in-controversial-s-1797658885

So making a joke about masturbation, that doesn't go down well, means you've issues with women now.
I like how in that long winded piece they didn't actually tell the joke, so readers could judge for themselves.

Sonics2k

Wibbs wrote: »

What the actual hell?

It's down to search manipulation, for example. A while back a bunch of people got pissy at Comcast, so when you Google searched them you'd get a load of Swastikas.

TheDoc

Bob24 wrote: »

A "memo like that" doesn't mean anything though if you don't quote it to explain what you mean by "like that".

Same as saying it is inappropriate - it doesn't mean anything if you don't clearly lay out why.
If you're saying any memo expressing a personal opinion is inappropriate fair enough no need to discuss the details of the document, but then there must be many other ones shared everyday within google which are not flagged as inappropriate so there is a bit of a double standard.
If however you're saying the specific content is inappropriate and at the same time you say "there is no entertaining this document" you are basically saying your are refusing to explain the facts your opinion is based on.

I'm saying that this reach from people to explain why this sort of action is unacceptable, is somewhat pointless since the people defending this action clearly are either not in employment, or have worked in a professional environment.

To explain why this document/memo is inappropriate due to it creating a hostile work environment for colleagues along with isolating the employee in question from being able to effectively work with peers, well I just shouldn't need to explain it to properly functioning adults...

TheDoc

Bambi wrote: »

If it's that obvious then it should be a fairly handy job to quote the relevant offending sections. Confusing that you refuse to

Because I'm not holding your hand for you?

From reading your posts you have your take on this situation and don't seem capable of understanding why the employee was fired, and rightly so.

TheDoc

conorhal wrote: »

Did he send it to 'everybody'? I see no evidence of that, just a mention that it 'went viral within the company'.

Well, I'd love to see the reaction on the left if a company fired a few employees for wearing their 'repeal' hoodies to work...

Something tells me a double standard would apply..

The memo was sent to numerous groups internally and while it ended up on one of the public, internal platforms, the employee clearly wanted and made efforts to make his memo viewable across the board.

And what reaction? No one would be fired for wearing a repeal hoodie. Granted in my place of work if someone came in wearing it I would pull them into the office, probably give them a dressing down and leave it at that.

However if one of my team created and circulated a memo with questionable facts and assumptions, creating a hostile environment for a certain demographic to push their repeal agenda, then yeah, they probably would get fired. Whatever about peoples opinions or beliefs, we are running a business here. We arn't running some social think tank. So if an employee creates an uncomfortable environment for others, and then isolates themselves of from collaboration and interaction with peers, then yeah, its dead weight I'm going to get rid off.

Grayson

Magnolia Echoing Deer wrote: »

fantastic article and it shows up Lena as a moron yet again, thanks for sharing

Read that article. It's dumb. take this bit.

Her tweet read: “Just overheard 2 @AmericanAir attendants having a transphobic talk. We should be teaching our employees about love and inclusivity.”

This was an arbitrary, unfounded accusation, against two humans who have nothing to do with her, and who are – trigger warning! – fully entitled to think what they like; totally free to have a personal conversation about whatever they please.

It's not arbitrary. It's not unfounded. She heard them talking. She's not denying that they have no right to an opinion, she's saying that the opinion is wrong. I seriously want to bitch slap anyone who says that someone's entitled to an opinion. Of course they fcuking are. However, it doesn't put that opinion above criticism. She didn't name them. She didn't dox them. She just said she overheard people saying this.

And then the idiot used the phrase trigger warning.

The author is a moron. I'm not a fan of Dunham, I find her irritating in the extreme but the author is being an idiot.

TheDoc

Bambi wrote: »

You're seeing two different criticisms here.

One is based on the merits of the piece itself, which you will get zero attempts to engage with from these quarters.

The other is based on the authors motivation and lack of judgement in producing and sharing it. If you work at google you might have an idea as to the mechanisms and culture of debate they have. I don't work at google and neither does anyone here I guess so all we can do is speculate.

I know enough people who work at Google to have spoken to them about this incident. And I've worked in enough companies of various sizes, one of which not to dissimilar to Google, and am pretty safe in making the assumption the actions taken by the employee were ridiculous and stupid.

If he bought into Google being more then a company because they provide some nice lunches, bright colours and bean bags, he's an absolute fool. Work is work , a company is a company, and while there is loads of wonderful Americana and "freedom of expression" being brought into modern companies, there is still some fundamentals and basics of work and office etiquette. One of which is not, be it you think maturely or proper, circulating material that degrades or puts into questions the abilities of colleagues based on gender or untangible metrics. Especially when your construction and "facts" are questionable and to be honest just nonsense