Don’t rich people have better things to do than incite others over trivialities? There’s a world of problems that need solving that people like Marc and his ilk could really move the needle on if they set their minds and put their resources to it.
Don’t rich people have better things to do than incite others over trivialities? There’s a world of problems that need solving that people like Marc and his ilk could really move the needle on if they set their minds and put their resources to it.
Well, it’s enabled by default. Many people won’t know, or won’t bother to find out, how to disable it. They’ll likely just click through and accept the suggestions. In any case, the mere suggestion is bound to have some effect on people writing. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory.
Hell, maybe that’s a good thing. Using inclusive language is good. But let’s not sit here and say “this is just a non-issue” because it isn’t.
Is it, though? Using "inclusive" as a terminal value for writing means that other values, such as "conciseness" and "clarity" and "beauty" decrease, for the same amount of effort.
As an extreme example, that front page in the Lancet that referred to woman as "bodies with vaginas".
And for that cost, I don't believe there is any benefit.
Even aside from cost/benefit analysis, I strongly disagree that tech giants ought to nudge the writing I create and consume. People respond to propaganda, and my values don't align with theirs.
Do you have any data that points to this? It's not clear that there is a zero-sum game here, or that conciseness and inclusiveness are diametrically opposite goals with metrics that completely cancel each other out.
What data could I possibly have here? Even theoretically? What do you want me to give you?
>It's not clear that there is a zero-sum game here
Not necessarily exactly zero-sum, but it's very clear to me - adding a new priority means less focus on the older priorities.
Here is a very clear example of all three being sacrificed for inclusiveness: https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1445200620340842496
Learning and language researchers have metrics they use to quantify reading comprehension. And in the inverse, reading comprehension skills and performance are tested in law school entrance exams (just as a personal example).
I haven't read this exact article, but I can near 100% guarantee they were actually trying to be inclusive of trans men, AFAB nonbinary people, and people who have had bottom surgery to flip their bit (not all are women), not refer to women specifically. There are common medical issues that affect all of them and it does no one any good to pretend like cis women are the only people worth including.
You can say "women".
Or you can say the uglier, less clear, less concise "bodies with vaginas", which is more inclusive.
Too many friends have been turned away from (or laughed out of) doctor's offices because people making arguments like the one you make here keep the practice, and the insurance they have to obey, from being able to think about and change policies to be more inclusive.
You picked this example, not me. This is the worst possible example for your point because the lack of precision you argue for gets people killed.
Does it? Does it really? Does a single doctor that reads the Lancet not understand what a woman is? One (1) single doctor?
How does that work, exactly?
Does that hypothetical doctor read the lancet, sees "woman" on the cover, and think to himself, "wow, that sure applies to my patient with a penis and disphoria", and then goes on to prescribe a drug that is deadly to men and not women?
E.g. It might warn a speaker of british english that their text "Remember to bring some fags" is likely to be misunderstood in a rather unfortunate manner.
The fact that it alerts _landlord_, however, suggests to me that its false positives will deprive it of most of its utility and that people will either turn it off (/ignore it) or will slavishly follow it and write confusing or even offensive text as a result.
I think everyone in the comments can agree with this.
You've moved the goal posts to narrow the focus onto Google Docs, though. When my grandma wants to write a letter, she doesn't go searching for a "cloud-based shareable free office suite". She launches whatever is already installed on her computer.
The classic "think of the children" argument. Who could possibly argue against the children?
> By highlighting these words in their monopolistic product (Google Docs)
Google Docs isn't a monopoly, and you're betraying your bias in your criticism by pushing that narrative.
"Today, more than half the nation’s primary- and secondary-school students — more than 30 million children — use Google education apps like Gmail and Docs, the company said. And Chromebooks, Google-powered laptops that initially struggled to find a purpose, are now a powerhouse in America’s schools. Today they account for more than half the mobile devices shipped to schools."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-educati...
I'm not sure how someone can have a notable majority in anything and not be said to be dominating that thing.
Look up Eskimo, Gypsy and c**n (racial slur) in most dictionaries.
I have Merriam-Webster open in a tab right now, so let's check.
It says "plural Eskimo or Eskimos, now sometimes offensive" (with a long explaination paragraph under), "usually offensive, see usage paragraph below" (again, with a long paragraph explaining) and "offensive —used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a Black person.
Being aware of inappropriate words in not new.
Dictionaries are available in schools. Should we ban them now?
But somehow it's still important to comment and mock, lest others might think he has a point.
When I saw the article, I knew that MS Word has had something like this for a while. I thought is was stupid but not worth my "angst". But people taking the time to speak out against this silliness are doing something good, and casually dismissing and mocking their concerns, rather than taking part in the conversation for or against, or just not commenting, is basically cowardice.
Like sure I should be doing something better with my time than philosophizing about whether it is okay to delist a couple random Dr. Seuss books. It's true I never actually intended to buy them and would've never noticed otherwise. But hello somebody went through the effort to cancel them in the first place. Don't those people have something better to do than worry about whether one of the dated illustrations in a not particularly popular children's book is a little culturally insensitive?
Google is the one that put a non-trivial amount of engineering hours into this feature. I can see ways in which it would be helpful, I can also see how it could be problematic. Regardless though, if we think about the big picture, Google is the one that could have meaningfully increased their impact by redirecting their efforts towards more serious problems. The time spent commenting on this issue on HN pales in comparison and I'm not sure how one could ask the "don't you have anything better to do?" question of commenters without asking it of Google. At least if their opinion truly is that this doesn't matter either way.
Meanwhile you're commenting on their activities rather than off moving the needle yourself. Why do you concern yourself with such trivialities, hmm?
I find it funny OP did not question if the time spent implementing the feature could have been better directed elsewhere. Only the much shorter time spent criticizing it. And now on a meta level it is okay to spend time questioning the criticism apparently. Makes it seem like the underlying concern has nothing to do with "directing energy elsewhere".
On the one hand, nobody is forced to use their suggested words just like nobody is forced to fix the grammar mistakes Google underlines. So it may have some cultural influence but it isn't really authoritarian. It's also not creepy in the sense that it is not using your data outside of what is directly in the Doc.
On the other hand, it is not flagging actually bigoted content, it is more akin to GitHub renaming the master branch (or at the very least that is a subset of what this flags). It would be horrifying if that kind of "infraction" actually did prevent you from using Google services. And I'd be seriously skeptical of any attempted bigotry detection like you're describing that is built on top of the system discussed here.