If somebody used HR as the mechanism to communicate feedback on the scientific rigor of research I was leading I would also find that concerning and objectionable. Human Resources is not peer review.
Honestly, if someone had to use HR to give feedback on anything, I would be more concerned as to why they couldn't say it directly to me.
HR wouldn't have made the final decision here, it seems other departments did. HR was just how someone felt it was safe to communicate that feedback, which for me is a major issue in a workplace.
I think there's a place for HR to help somebody give feedback about social or work-style issues. If somebody has a track record of getting defensive with face-to-face feedback it might be useful to have a manager present as a mediator and go through a formal process.
That's just not the same as giving scientific feedback in the review process for research and shouldn't be in the way there.
I think you're missing the massive point that someone thought that doing it in a non-anonymous way would have resulted in retribution. That is not defensive, it's offensive. You seem to be missing the fact that the woman seems quite happy to try and bury people over seemed transgressions.
Someone thought they HAD to goto HR to provide the feedback because no other way was safe. If you want to act about the scientifc review process, that should never happen and when it does there should be serious action taken.
What if you were the sort of person with a very public history of suing your employer? Could you understand then why they might be very formal when dealing with you, especially when needing to deliver news you'd likely not be a fan of?
I don't really see how that's relevant to the specific issue of scientific rigor, and in this case is a strangely one-sided issue. as Dr. Gebru pointed out, soon after she took steps towards legal action against google (I don't think a suit was actually filed) she was also given an award by Google for her work and performance.
Also, it's strange to be giving google so much benefit of the doubt here. On the same day this happened the NLRB filed two formal complaints against google for retaliatory firing practices. If any participant in this drama has a known record of retaliatory and unfair labor practices, it is google, as documented by the federal government's extremely detailed complaint.
I don’t really get this sentiment. Are you so absolutely dedicated to the phrase “falling on deaf ears” that if somebody says to you “hey, that phrase might hurt somebody’s feelings, can you use an alternative” you take it as some sort of massive imposition on your life?
I don’t understand why small changes that can be done in kindness are seen as so inconvenient as to be worth this level of rejection.
I’m hearing impaired. “Falling on deaf ears” is a phrase that honestly does kind of bug me. People use it to mean being ignored for idealogical reasons but often the reason I, somebody with an actual hearing impairment, don’t react to something is because the person trying to communicate with me isn’t doing a great job of accommodating that. I tell me coworkers “I’m hearing impaired, please speak loudly and slowly if the environment is noisy” but they still mumble and get annoyed with me when I ask them to repeat.
Idk man, if you feel like this is language policing I recommend you walk a few years in my shoes and come back to me.
By your logic, how can you can casually say "walk in my shoes," when you can be sure it bugs people confined to wheelchairs?
Do you owe us all an apology and a promise to never use that common and easily-understood idiom again? I don't think you do... but do you think you do? If not, why not?
However, I don't think I owe you all an apology, and you'll notice that I never asked anybody for an apology for using "fall on deaf ears" or anything else. I did say we should practice radical compassion and if somebody says to us "hey this phrase bugs me or hurts my feelings" there's very few reasons I can imagine why we shouldn't accept that and consider using different language.
I'm happy to trade "live my life" for "walk in my shoes" in order to make folks who use wheelchairs feel more included in my communities. Why not? What do I lose? It's not like "walk in my shoes" is some deeply important idiom to me and if I never say it again I will be forever a less-happy person.
I totally agree with you in the context of small settings. There, it's correct to avoid phrases that are harmful to people, once you are aware of the issue they have. That's just part of not being an asshole.
But in public forums--and relevant to the article--public software/documentation, I believe the number of problematic phrases approaches 100%. Even referencing "years from now" can bring a Stage-4 cancer patient to tears--100% real pain I have seen with my own eyes--and there are many people in that state. Yet, obviously we have to accept that we will cause those people pain and go ahead referencing the future that was taken from them.
Therefore, to me, the only social contract that "works" in public is that we all try not to offend, and anyone who gets hurt by everyday language realizes their reaction is mostly an internal issue, and no harm was meant or could be reasonably avoided.
I'd expect that latitude of the wheelchair-bound person who winces at references to walking, and from the developer who thinks of slavery at the sight of a "master branch." The tinge they felt was real, but in my view it is not our responsibility to avoid it in a public space. As a result, I must disagree with the handful of advocates who want to change every git repository on the planet. But maybe I am in the wrong. It is just my opinion.
Thanks for your reply. I always worry these topics will get unnecessarily heated.
(edit: removed a bunch of text that was just reiterating stuff I already said).
I feel for your problems, but I don't think you being hearing impaired gives you a right to be offended at the usage of the word "deaf". It's a functional description, not a slur.
I have some similar things which I'd rather not expand upon, but I don't think that gives me the right to be offended at terms unless they are slurs. As a comparison, people shouldn't be offended at any usage of the word "smart", but they're allowed to be offended by the word "nerd".
I don't really understand why it's okay for you to tell other people what they have a "right" to be offended about, but not okay for them to tell you that they're offended about it.
Additionally, common usage of the phrase "falling on deaf ears" is almost never used to actually describe communicating with a deaf person. It's usually used to describe communicating with a hearing person who, for some reason other than physical hearing impairment, did not listen.
Therefor I think it is the exact opposite of a functional description. Instead it uses a physical disability to describe folks without that disability behaving in unproductive ways. Given that, it seems quite reasonable to say "this phrase could be seen as excluding to folks who have that disability".
> I don’t understand why small changes that can be done in kindness are seen as so inconvenient as to be worth this level of rejection.
I think one key disconnect is that some people form complete sentences in their head before they speak, and have an opportunity to effectively “edit them”, as if you would read and edit an email before sending. Others, like myself, communicate a thought directly from mouth to brain. I try my best to change patterns and think about my words in professional settings, but, every additional thing I must avoid saying is effectively another branching point in the filter function for my speech. Each individual thing may not be a big inconvenience, but cumulatively, it becomes quite an inconvenience. In the last few years, I feel a constant pressure and anxiety about the words that I say. I have no bad intention and really truly don’t want to make anyone feel bad, but no one cares about my intention... once I say the wrong thing it’s done and I’m judged by others for it. This is the first time I ever heard of “fell on deaf ears” being offensive, and I can definitely understand why, and I’d never want to make you feel bad by saying it, but it’s yet another common phrase to add to my list of filters. I’m now thinking of all of the people who I may have offended by saying it.
I feel like context is everything. If I said that in context of a deaf person not hearing something I said, that would be offensive and hurtful and rude. If I said it in the context of an objection I raised being ignored, it should be understood that I’m not literally referring to deaf people. If I said something was “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, everyone knows I’m not literally putting straws on a camel.
I really appreciate your thoughtful take here. One thing I think is important to note is that I don't want, and I don't think any hearing impaired person would want (though I can't speak for all of them) for you to spend really any time feeling guilty about a potential offense you might have caused.
What I'm advocating for is radical compassion and empathy. When you hear somebody say "this thing can hurt me" worry less about all the times you were involved in that, and consider more how you can help folks avoid that harm in the future.
That's not to say we should ever introspect. I noticed that with a friend of mine who recently came out as trans I was still often using gendered language "dude, man, etc" from before they came out, even if I usually got their pronouns right. They didn't ask me, but the introspection I was doing prompted me to offer them an apology and commit to doing better about those kinds of things. That has brought us closer and given me a better perspective for being a good friend and ally to them.
I don't think anybody thinks you're trying to be a jerk, or intentionally seeking to hurt people's feelings. What I'm reacting to is a vocal minority of folks, often in tech, who seem to react to being told "Hey, this thing sometimes hurts my feelings when I notice it" with "How dare you accuse me of being literally Darth Vader. This is THOUGHT POLICING."
Just... try your best to be kind to people. If that means you're the CEO of github and you can change "master" to "main" why the heck wouldn't you?
Thanks, I appreciate your perspective and I agree with a lot of it. I absolutely try to be kind to people. There is though, unfortunately, a vocal minority of people who really exact judgement when the wrong words are used, and they’re usually not even part of the group whom would feel hurt by hearing such words. I’m sure they have good intentions also, but I really do think there is too much “word policing” going on. It’s very hard to unlearn every common word or phrase that someone may find offensive, and the feeling is somewhat similar to having a piece of duct tape over your mouth for someone like me. I find myself over analyzing my words and saying “uhhh” a lot trying to make sure the things I say don’t contain any bad words/phrases. As a software engineer, I tend(ed) to use “blacklist/whitelist” a lot, and the new replacement words of “allowlist/denylist” still feel awkward and don’t fit every situation. I’m trying my best to slowly come around and try to adopt all of the new phrases, but it’s a lot more work than the “think before you speak” communicators realize.
I think a better strategy would be to just lead by example and use the phrasing you think is appropriate, as others will likely naturally adopt it as we do with other group context phrases. After all, I learned words like “blacklist” from reading code and technical books and running CLI programs. I just think we should be patient with people, assume good intentions, and never shame people for using the wrong words with the best of intentions.
>If that means you’re the CEO of GitHub and you change “master” to “main” why the heck wouldn’t you?
Because it doesn’t really do anything to solve the underlying issues, and I question the intention behind it. I’d rather see GitHub work to make their teams more diverse, provide assistance to open source projects created by people of color and women, improve access to technical education, etc. than to make a change like this and act like “okay I did it guys, I fixed racism” (I realize that’s disingenuous). It also has a nonzero cost to GitHub and its users, for arguably not much benefit.
I don’t understand why small changes that can be done in kindness are seen as so inconvenient as to be worth this level of rejection.
I don’t get this either; I’d guess it’s just a personal overreaction. When asked to change something like the language they use to describe something, some people interpret that as an attack. They tend to then overcompensate with a bit of “but I’m not a racist and anyway this is so insignificant it doesn’t even matter” bluster which seems like it probably takes more effort than just doing the thing that’s so insignificant to them anyway.
Life for me felt a bit brighter after I started reflecting more on the language I used, and realised that using an idiom like “falling on deaf ears” or “he’s a bit mental”, or even in some cases technical terminology like “master and slave” might carry different shading with different people that I wasn’t immediately aware of. The people you interact with are all going through their own shit all the time, and it’s nice to be mindful about things you say having an impact on them that you’d rather avoid.
> I don’t get this either; I’d guess it’s just a personal overreaction.
Maybe some of us frogs can tell the water is slowly getting close to boiling. Maybe we just don't like being bullied and told what to say and think.
> master and slave
Master as in record, not as in "master and slave". There haven't been "master and slave" IDE hard drives for about 15 years now. FWIW, I would give someone a funny look if they purposely used the word "slave" in their codebase or as part of technical jargon, but the word master isn't automatically about slave ownership. That's just incorrect.
If “small” change offends me because of my tiny stature would you please consider being more precise and saying “inconsequential” or “trivial” change instead of making a spatial analogy for its magnitude?
I said this to another commenter who pointed out that "walk in my shoes" could be excluding language to folks who are paraplegic, I'm honestly happy to hear this feedback and consider using more inclusive language.
Frankly this is good feedback simply from a precise communication perspective. We often use special metaphors when we mean to describe complexity, and "trivial" would more easily communicate what I meant regardless.
This came up recently in my romantic relationship: I used "small" to describe an emotional feeling I was having and it did hurt the feelings of my partner, who is short. They didn't like that size was used to describe a negative emotion and I appreciated that they shared that with me and gave me an opportunity to think about a more precise way of communicating my feelings that didn't connect a negative connotation to something they identified with.
Why is this so hard to understand that I would seek to live this way? I think we should be excited to practice radical compassion with each other.
Yep. My comment was 90% tongue-in-cheek but ‘small’ in the way you used it also accurately describes my lived experience with being small: unimportant, you probably won’t even notice, easy to ignore, etc. However, it’s not a big deal. If you want to strip all the analogies, flavor, and richness out of the English that you use until you you’re left with some hyper-literal newspeak go ahead. I, and judging by this thread many others, am not interested in devoting half of my brainpower to self-censoring in real-time as I try to mutter my way through giving a presentation or speak to a group.
Being conscious of your partners emotions and not minimizing their feelings is one thing. Being offended by phrases like “a little problem” or “a big deal” in public is ridiculous and laughable.
I think maybe we're a bit too far afield. I don't think people are talking about phrases like "a little problem" or "a big deal". Do you take issue with the point I raised about "falling on deaf ears?" Why are we talking about hypothetical complaints people might have about the word small when we have real examples about the use of "falling on deaf ears" or "master" terminology in tech.
I think people are making good faith attempts to communicate that those phrases hurt their feelings. I think it's not wrong to make a good faith attempt to avoid hurting people's feelings. I think complaining about a hypothetical slippery slope misses the point.
> I am not interested in devoting half of my brainpower to self-censoring
But we already do this. You don't just blurt out everything you think. If you walk by somebody in the supermarket who smells strongly of perfume do you just shout "you stink"? When you're speaking to a group you're probably picking appropriate language to use. You're not dropping a bunch of f-bombs at work and probably not using a ton of programmer-specific technical jargon or metaphors with your friends who aren't in tech.
When one of my closest friends from childhood came out as trans it took me a month to stop using the wrong pronouns for them. I had to think about it in the moment... until I didn't anymore because I built up a habit and got used to it. Now it takes no brainpower at all. This is normal. This is how normal habit-building works.
> Being conscious of your partners emotions...
But not my coworkers? Not my black peers? Not a potential hearing-impaired contributor to one of my oss projects on github?
A decade ago Facebook did not own Instagram or WhatsApp. Framing this as "Facebook and Google have not changed how they operate" is disingenuous, seeing as Anti-trust has generally been enforced over what is in the interest of the consumer.
Google has always been an advertising company. Google's growing monopoly, however static their operating methods have been, is no longer viewed as in the consumers' best interest and is thus now under scrutiny.
I don't think it's all that accurate to frame this as "people in power are threatened by [big tech]'s power" when there are plenty of reasonable people making convincing arguments that big tech is no longer operating in the best interests of the consumer.
How come the argument "you can just buy an android phone" doesn't apply to iOS users in the same way "you can just sideload an APK" does to Google play store users? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious about how people think of these distinctions.
Personally, it's a bit like if I purchased a Mercedes but found that I could only drive it on certain pre-approved roads, subject to varying partnerships and licensing agreements. Someone telling me, "you can just buy a scooter" seems predicated on the assertion that they both belong in the same category of "means of transportation," but ignores the fact that they operate very differently in several ways. It also ignores the fact that I've paid for the Mercedes (and possibly invested time and money into skills and tools to repair it), and can't necessarily recoup those costs.
Fundamentally, it ignores whether freedom of movement should be infringed in such a way. One can currently sideload an APK on Android, but what's stopping Google from taking the same hard line as Apple?
Note: I am using the hyperbolic analogy above for rhetorical reasons; I don't think Android phones are perfectly analogous to a scooter. We use Android at work precisely because of Apple's lockdowns, and while I actually like the OS well enough I think I would find it frustrating on a personal phone.
Cars have less built in switching costs than phones. You can only have one phone at a time and there is an entire ecosystem of services and apps are carried forward when you buy a new one.
A better metaphor might be renting a home. Imagine if you could only fill it with furniture and appliances that have been approved, and you can only park certain types of cars in the garage. You could always move, but then you have to buy new everything.
The message you're replying to argues that a car that refuses to go on certain roads is exactly equivalent to a car that does, because its owners are free to buy the other car. This is a complete non-sequitur, and I am surprised someone is debating it seriously.
Because the former requires replacing everthing else on the phone and the phone itself, whereas the latter, as far as I can tell, has no negative effects beyond the sideloaded APK possibly being malicious, ie no negative effects artificially imposed by the phone maker.
You do need to turn off signature checking in the security settings, so not completely out of the box.
Given that the application store can be changed to blacklist a certain app, it is not unlikely that the next step is similar changes to the apk installer.
It should also be noted that there are no guarantees that signature checking is optional in all future builds of Android. While there are differences between the iPhone and Android business models, they should also not be overstated. My personal guess is that they will drift closer over time rather than farther apart.
Uh? I'm not sure I understand your question. The argument doesn't apply because we're talking about the quality of the phone, not the generic freedom of its users. Of course the users are free to use a different phone. Actually, they might be forced to because the phone they bought will refuse to do what they ask it to. Which sucks.
Technically, you can on an iPhone too, just not for free and not anywhere near as conveniently.
There were various tools in circulation while there were no decent Jailbreaks. One that springs to mind was iReSign - according to its github page it's for re-signing app bundles with enterprise keys, but that's not what it was used for back then. People captured the .ipa files and signed them with developer keys and all sorts of unfortunate things happened after that.
TL;DR: "sideloading" for iOS = Free: no. Convenient: no. Possible: yes. Out of reach of most people: absolutely yes.
I added "Slate Plus platform as a service" to clarify what this is actually a link to as I didn't think just "Supporting Cast" was actually informative.
Honestly, I think this makes it an even better analogy! Apple is exactly like the dealership groups suing Tesla to prevent them from selling directly to consumers.
Not really, Tesla hasn’t placed their cars in dealerships for years bound by a contract, and all of a sudden decided that dealerships don’t deserve the margin the same Tesla would have been bound to pay through the above contract terms.
