Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6gvONxR4sf7o | Hacker News Reader

This whole question of resigned or fired seems like such a weird one. It's getting so much debate! I think everybody understands that she gave an ultimatum that included a "or else I will resign." I think everybody understands that Google responded with a "you are out as of now" that took her by surprise.

And yet there are a bazillion articles debating what verb best describes that pair of events. I get that there is legal relevance, and let the lawyers argue that one. But the rest of this seems to be a court of public opinion thing, in which case it should have no relevance given that everyone is agreed on the facts. Why do we care so much about the one-word linguistics of it? How about you just don't use a single verb alone, and instead spend the literally two sentences it takes to explain that part?

View on HN

'Resigned' indicates an action on her part, and typically considered to be an amicable parting. 'Fired' means an action on Google's part, typically because of a perceived misdeed.

By calling it a resignation, Google is making it sound as if it was an amicable choice she made, not their judgement call about her actions.

Words matter. Word choices always matter. Especailly single words which come with a lot of built-in context.

I completely agree words matter. They matter immensely because of what they communicate. That's my point. It seems plainly evident at this point that neither word is aiding communication, because we're arguing about what the words mean, rather than the facts of the situation. A sentence saying she was fired and a sentence saying she resigned both miss too much of the situation to be called clear, honest communication, which matters.

It’s no one’s business outside of the organization and the person. You may feel entitled to an explanation as an uninvolved third party, but I can’t think of any legal reason why you would be.

However, we have gotten communication on the matter. What occurred has been explained:

She did not get a chance to offer up her resignation, Google terminated their employment relationship before that opportunity arose.

And thus, it is completely reasonable to boil it down to:

Google fired Timnit Gebru.

Words matter. Google is lying when they claim that Timnit Gebru resigned. Google should absolutely be called out for this lie.

I think this is the argument equivalent of bikeshedding in design documentation - people feel like they need to have an opinion, and “which one verb best summarises these two events?” is the discussion with the lowest barrier to entry.

Additionally, in this world where barely anybody reads past a headline, that discussion does have _some_ merit, even if every other part of this issue is _more_ important...

I don't think it's a need to have an opinion. They're trying to spin it as a firing so they can claim Gebru is an oppressed black woman who's a victim of racism. If she resigned then that narrative falls flat.

> This whole question of resigned or fired seems like such a weird one

It's mostly the side that supports Google management that is focussed on it as the primary issue; the side backing Gebru is more focussed on the triggering event itself, the unusual (for Google AI, and apparently for the field in general, as far as internal reviews go) review process applied to the paper on which Gebru was lead author and which she was told to retract, with the resigned/fired issue as an additional indicator of Google management being deceitful, but not the primary issue.

Did she actually resign ? No. As she didn't resign, was she fired ? Yes. The only issue is Google lying about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com