describe24

I don't think it's bad, I included it to further point out that her resignation wasn't the result of just one person deciding they would prefer she left. But that multiple people agreed that it would be best to accept her resignation. Which in turn, implies many people considered her work conduct inappropriate. If it had just been Jeff Dean, then I may have more sympathy for her case as clearly, that comes across much more personal and unfair, especially if no one else agrees.

I think a number of people have mentioned it but I don't think Google let her go because of either her email or paper. Her email alludes to there being tensions already present between her and her superiors for at least a year. It sounds like they may have already tried to have let her go. However, legally, they could not.

This latest event gave them an opportunity, since, she essentially gave them an ultimatum. Perhaps after last year's legal success she felt she would have the upper-hand and didn't expect them to actually decline her conditions.

Honestly, the focus on the paper is coming more from her and her supporters trying to spin it (although I'm sure many truly believe it) to make it sound like she was fired for trying to uncover ethical flaws at Google. When in reality, it sounds like she was difficult to work with and burnt a lot of bridges

Most people aren't responding because they're defending the actions of a "large corporate entity". They're relating to the people, such as Jeff Dean, that made that decision. A decision that definitely wasn't taken lightly. The people that had to work closely with her, with whom she has publicly ridiculed on Twitter.

She's even tweeted that she suspects there was a team of people behind the decision to accept her resignation. All those people don't put Google first. The hard truth is that she was probably extremely unpleasant to work with it (this is my reading of the above link and from what I've witnessed on Twitter) and they had just reached their limits. Not Google, but the people that had to work with her (I'm clearly not referring to her subordinates who are all apparently "indebted" to her which is a whole other issue onto itself). She comes across as very entitled and quite frankly, although I hate to say it as it's a bit of a cliche at this point, narcissistic.

These are all based on what I've been able to find online. I've never met her in person. I'm trying very hard to not see her negatively but it's also hard finding evidence that's she's not hostile to those that don't 100% accept and agree with her. I'm definitely open to seeing her in a different light if anyone wants to share links. However, just because you research ethics doesn't mean you practice what you preach nor that you're a saint who can do no wrong.

Nobody has set the bar that high. Many people are just expecting basic civility. We all have to deal with issues yet not everyone turns to being hostile at every beat. It's not a once off Tweet for her, I think more would be forgiving if that were the case

A lot of ethicists on twitter today saying they thought Google was ethical because of one person. Which is just wild

I actually find it quite unethical and potentially rather manipulative to share with your future employees that you fought tooth and nail for them. Essentially implying that they wouldn't be there if it weren't for you and immediately setting it up so that they feel indebted to you... it's chilling to see that tweet tbh

Argh, it's been archived already :(

She was in a position of privilege to hire people. Did she hire any black women or men to help with the lack of diversity she refers to?