The original "echo chamber" memo was written clearly and respectfully. The message was set out to encourage debate and make progress toward understanding. This wasn't a fox news drive buy, trump rally or some alt right rant. It was a real call for discussion.
Google comes back and makes it clear that this isn't a discussion and isn't discussable. What? Google's response is that this is per se wrong. And what do we do with a valid and stronger position as free people in a free society? We put out our logic, blowing away the other idea with a rational counter argument.
What we don't do is what Google is doing, what our society has been doing and what it looks destined to continue to do for some time - declare we are absolutely right without debate and start using the force available to us to push our point instead of reason.
Yup, Google is a company. They get to do this. Remember when Google stood up to China? Man I was proud of that. Google meant a bigger thing then, a commitment to intellectual discourse.
The saddest part about this spectacle is that the author and his detractors are literally talking past one another.
The author did not say that his female colleagues can't do tech. He's saying that the pool of talent in general population might not be the same size across genders. A quick glance at CS graduation statistics shows that is basically true today.
This is the same point that led in part to Larry Summers losing his job, when he dared wonder aloud about why there weren't more female academics.
If you're going to fire a man, you should at least do it for what he actually did.
Wow, it's not enough to even wait for this guy to get fired and then discuss, right or wrong, but they even have to write articles just salivating with the very anticipation of it...
This is a big group of people gathered around the stake chattering to each other in gleeful anticipation of burning a heretic. Even if this guy is wrong about everything, the spectacle is extremely disturbing.
> Our co-workers shouldn't have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being "agreeable" rather than "assertive," showing a "lower stress tolerance," or being "neurotic."
Ugh, this is not okay. It is almost certain the author meant "agreeable" and "neurotic" as two of Big Five personality traits (others being open, conscientious, extraverted), this is standard terminology in psychology. And it is indeed established that women score higher on agreeableness and neuroticism, across cultures.
I'd think the right conclusion to draw is that Google should be a great place to work even if you are agreeable and neurotic (alternative wording would be sensitive). Instead, Pichai implies Google is not a great place to work if you are agreeable or sensitive, and denies science that women are more agreeable and sensitive. Denying reality is useless.
There's an interesting article on the front page that firing this guy might be grounds for a lawsuit in and of itself. I don't think this guy should be fired. Google should make him an example of their willingness to listen, have thoughtful introspection, and consider all points of view. I truly hope this person is not fired. Free speech seems to only work when you're the majority.
Since when? The github transgender controversy a few years ago was about posts one of the contributors made in a different forum. Brendan Eich was pushed out because of his personal views. If this person posted it on his facebook page the result would likely be the same.
While I can understand Google deciding to fire the author, he's embarrassed the shit out of his company in a very public way, I think it would be sad if they do.
The dude has some serious misconceptions about the world and people, but I think his heart is in the right place. He's working from some bad assumptions and has come to bad conclusions as a result. It's classic Garbage-In-Garbage-Out.
I'd really like to see the Goog take this as an opportunity to really reach out to this guy (and hopefully all the other software bros who give enough of a fuck to pay attention) and help him understand better. If they can get through to him, they will have a very persuasive proponent of reform on their hands.
Also, treating this guy with respect and not firing him outright will demonstrate that open conversation about important issues is allowed at Google.
And, in case it sounds like I agree with Mr. Bro Grammer, "wimmins is soo emotional", I think the gentleman needs a solid walloping with a clue-stick.
> He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”
So now the CEO of one of the richest companies on earth is on record blatantly misinterpreting what the guy wrote. This is the wildest dream of every unfair dismissal lawyer the world over, they'll be lining up at his doorstep to take on the job.
Aside from that, it's a text book example of why codes of conduct are such an awful idea, they're a weapon designed to be used against anyone who steps out of line. Usually vague enough that most people will violate it, but only wrongthinkers will be punished for it.
I've noticed some people on Twitter, including Susan Fowler and Kara Swisher, saying free speech is only a protection against government intrusion and doesn't apply in the corporate sector. That seems to be mirrored in this article.
The only thing I'd say is that those people should think carefully. Denouncing and shrinking rights such as free speech and normalising their role as negative rights when it is convenient to do so will work against their agenda, and is in common with how people like Trump view other rights
I think it's hilarious you would bring Trump into this example of Silicon Valley PC-group think run amok.
This type of collective mob mentality lashing out at "wrongthink" is why Trump won the election.
This is no more common than with people who hate Trump. This is par for the course with Social Justice Warriors who treat a person's well reasoned point of view citing data as unacceptable sexism that must be eradicated, so he gets fired.
> This type of collective mob mentality lashing out at "wrongthink" is why Trump won the election.
No, he won with the help of the gutted Voting Rights Act, ridiculously gerrymandered districts, and an electoral college that gives far too much weight to rural racists.
Ironically the primary benefit of free speech was central to the article: you don't just need people who look different from each other, but think different from each other. It's sad to see that we're increasingly putting ourselves in information bubbles at the same time that our culture has decided that we should punish thoughtcrime.
But Google can't really tolerate people with controversial opinions because, ironically, the legal environment. If a person says the wrong thing, the courts will say it created a discriminatory environment. And now that even discussing controversial topics is off the table, I don't see how we can really expect things to improve. We'll just wind up with an increasingly divided society with each part living in their own alternate reality.
I think you missed the point. Nobody is shrinking or denouncing rights because right of free speech never protected against corporate sector sanctions. You are the one who is trying to expand free speech to protect you in places that no one intended.
maybe we need to re-evaluate free speech protections to bring them into alignment with today’s world, where certain corporations can be (arguably) more powerful than governments
That's arguable. Do you mean the right to free speech as found in the US Constitution doesn't extend to the corporate sector? That's true, SCOTUS agrees thus far.
Does some right to free speech not sourced in law, but perhaps morality or elsewhere, or even rooted in democracy, extend anywhere? I think that's well arguable.
did the author shot gun the manifesto or just send it to a few colleagues?
How did it spread so far?
The difference is that one is a few people discussing a thought bubble (good for everyone) the other is inappropriate use of company facilities (not good for everyone or the company).
the first one is not in itself sack-able... but the other may very well be a sack-able offence.
The author was trapped. He shared the document to the "skeptics" internal group asking for feedback. He didn't realize that the skeptics group had been infected by SJWs for years. They swarmed him. It was like dropping a steak in a shark tank.
> The author was trapped. He shared the document to the "skeptics" internal group asking for feedback. He didn't realize that the skeptics group had been infected by SJWs for years.
Sounds like a company sponsored honey pot, even more ammo for an unfair dismissal lawsuit.
Yes! Men and women are of course equal. They're just different, and different people choose to do different things. Why is that so fucking controversial?
Google comes back and makes it clear that this isn't a discussion and isn't discussable. What? Google's response is that this is per se wrong. And what do we do with a valid and stronger position as free people in a free society? We put out our logic, blowing away the other idea with a rational counter argument.
What we don't do is what Google is doing, what our society has been doing and what it looks destined to continue to do for some time - declare we are absolutely right without debate and start using the force available to us to push our point instead of reason.
Yup, Google is a company. They get to do this. Remember when Google stood up to China? Man I was proud of that. Google meant a bigger thing then, a commitment to intellectual discourse.
Why can't we talk anymore?