Do you really think it's valuable for me to regurgitate an entire discussion that I've provided a link to (and which anyone can easily read) in my comment when what I'm actually trying to do is make a wider, but relatively pithy, point about journalistic integrity and the impact that the lack of it is having on our societies more than comment on Timnit's specific case? I will say that your comments are an almost perfect illustration of that point though.
Timnit claims she was fired, you’ve completely erased that part from the discussion and used it to prove a point about journalistic integrity. You provided a link to a massive discussion that has clearly not yet been able to piece through the details. When I asked you why you were so confident in your position that Timnit was clearly in the wrong and rightfully terminated because she didn’t comply with what Google told her to do, you decided that I lack journalistic integrity.
Google, talking through Jeff Dean, claims that Timnit was unhappy with her situation and submitted a good faith resignation which Google accepted due to her not following their policies. Timnit claims that she was forced into a position where she had to issue her ultimatum, forcing her into a resignation. And we have claims from Google employees saying that the process she had was unusual and did not match a normal review. Isn’t the true journalistic malpractice ignoring this and claiming that any title that doesn’t match your view, which appears to be Google’s view of the situation is inaccurate?
