Ms. Maya the Bee

Google cancels meeting about gender controversy due to harassment and doxxing

Recommended Posts

Ms. Maya the Bee   
Ms. Maya the Bee

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/10/16128380/google-cancels-all-hands-meeting-controversy-memo

 

Quote

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has canceled the company’s much-anticipated meeting to talk about gender issues today. The move came after some of its employees expressed concern over online harassment they had begun to receive after their questions and names have been published outside the company on a variety of largely alt-right sites.

 

“We had hoped to have a frank, open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally,” wrote Pichai to employees. “Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be ‘outed’ publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall.”

Quote

Sources inside Google said some employees had begun to experience “doxxing” — online harassment that can take various forms and is defined as “searching for and publishing private or identifying information about [a particular individual] on the internet, typically with malicious intent.”

 

also relevant:

https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retrobot   
Retrobot

I'm not going to say much about this as I'm not in a great place mentally but...I would like to say @Ms. Maya the Bee I admire your bravery for posting this topic. *applauds*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimmerian   
Cimmerian

I certainly hope this "doxxing" didn't go any further than this part mentioned in the article: "Wired reported earlier that conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos “posted on his Facebook page the Twitter biographies of eight Google employees who criticized Damore’s post.” Although I don't know if I would consider posting information the individual has made public online themselves to be doxxing since the term usually seems to mean publishing private identifying information about someone online (with my understanding being that this private information was still private before; i.e. information that the individual did not already publish about themselves online somewhere, like phone numbers, personal email addresses, home addresses etc.).

 

I do not support any threats towards the individuals regardless, or any publishing of private information such as names not outwardly associated with a username, phone numbers, personal email addresses, addresses, etc.

 

I finally got curious enough to look up this memo myself since it keeps getting brought up. Here it is if anyone would like to read it for themselves: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato

Google fired a guy who had leaked information about how Google discriminates against non-leftists ideology, and censors information. Which is within their right as a private corporation, but it still is morally wrong seeing what position they hold in everyday life, and how it impacts everything.

 

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

 

As a result, the people in Google are feeling the effects of what it is like to be "Protested" against by the masses. Which it itself, has set upon the Right many many times over. 

 

To me, it just looks like a bunch of complaining about them being the victims of their own tactics. Tumblr is just as bad in that regard. I say they are reaping their just desserts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ms. Maya the Bee   
Ms. Maya the Bee

Acting like harassment and doxxing are justified forms of protest is not okay, regardless of what politics are involved.

 

 

Should learn to expect this shit from AVEN by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
14 minutes ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

Acting like harassment and doxxing are justified forms of protest is not okay, regardless of what politics are involved.

 

 

Should learn to expect this shit from AVEN by now.

I'm not acting like anything, I'm saying that is the world we live in now. I'm actually against doxxing and leaking all together (unless its a matter of national betrayal). I think it is poor behavior, and anti-professional. 

 

If you want to get angry, get angry at all the leakers who normalized the practice after Trump got elected. All these people leaking to the media, inspired everyone else to try to leak because they think it is ok now. I think that the Mainstream media's aggressive Anti-Trump, Anti-Conservative rhetoric has pushed many Right wingers into political activism, and hacktivism as well.  It is not their fault they are being radicalized, because of discrimination and biases in representation in the media.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ms. Maya the Bee   
Ms. Maya the Bee
44 minutes ago, Yato said:

I say they are reaping their just desserts. 

You said they deserved to be harassed and doxxed, it's right there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
18 minutes ago, Ms. Maya the Bee said:

You said they deserved to be harassed and doxxed, it's right there. 

No, I am saying they got what they brought upon themselves. There is a difference between observing cause and effect, than condoning breaking the law for the activists. 

 

If I said someone deserves to be set on fire, for burning down houses. It doesn't mean I am saying it is ok to burn down houses. I'm saying a person is learning the consequences of their actions.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BionicPi   
BionicPi
33 minutes ago, Yato said:

If I said someone deserves to be set on fire, for burning down houses. It doesn't mean I am saying it is ok to burn down houses. I'm saying a person is learning the consequences of their actions.

But you are condoning arson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
Just now, BionicPi said:

But you are condoning arson.

How is that condoning arson? It's not my job to tell people how to live their lives, by not stopping them from doing anything. I have zero power here, other than to observe. I know why people are angry and doxxing Google, and I can relate. That doesn't mean I am telling people to do it, or doing it myself, therefor not condoning anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apatrickwsu   
apatrickwsu
54 minutes ago, Yato said:

How is that condoning arson? It's not my job to tell people how to live their lives, by not stopping them from doing anything. I have zero power here, other than to observe. I know why people are angry and doxxing Google, and I can relate. That doesn't mean I am telling people to do it, or doing it myself, therefor not condoning anything. 

Saying "That's the world we live in." or "They got what they had coming" is certainly condoning and normalizing behavior. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest is also not a good thing to say as a moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BionicPi   
BionicPi
1 hour ago, Yato said:

If I said someone deserves to be set on fire, for burning down houses. It doesn't mean I am saying it is ok to burn down houses. I'm saying a person is learning the consequences of their actions.  

(In scenario) You are saying someone should be set on fire. I realise I'm using arson rather freely, and it more properly would be immolation, but you're condoning the intentional destruction of persons/persons' property for the crime of setting fire.

(Out of scenario) You're saying the doxxing is justified, in essence, permissible. Or at least that's how "they brought it upon themselves" reads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
5 minutes ago, apatrickwsu said:

Saying "That's the world we live in." or "They got what they had coming" is certainly condoning and normalizing behavior. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest is also not a good thing to say as a moderator.

I'm not saying it as a moderator, but a member. This is my opinion. 

 

con·done
kənˈdōn/
verb
  1. accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
     
    I am neither allowing, or letting any behavior continue. I am simply stating that the results are happening, because of the choices google made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apatrickwsu   
apatrickwsu

I seriously hope you don't have access to personal info about users if you thin that in the world we live in that someone who posts something you disagree with should expect to be doxxed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
1 minute ago, BionicPi said:

(In scenario) You are saying someone should be set on fire. I realise I'm using arson rather freely, and it more properly would be immolation, but you're condoning the intentional destruction of persons/persons' property for the crime of setting fire.

(Out of scenario) You're saying the doxxing is justified, in essence, permissible. Or at least that's how "they brought it upon themselves" reads.

Once again, I didn't say it was justified. I said it was the result of Google's actions that they received negative actions against them. Do you not know what just desserts is? It is wanting people to receive punishment for their crime. I am no different than a police officer who wants to see a criminal put in jail for committing crimes. That is literally it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
Just now, apatrickwsu said:

I seriously hope you don't have access to personal info about users if you thin that in the world we live in that someone who posts something you disagree with should expect to be doxxed

I don't condone doxxing, or leaking of information. I said that in my original post. I do however, think that their censorship and discrimination resulted in people acting against them. This being the result of their actions. I think you guys are just misunderstaning me. 

 

I mean, I wonder how many of you spoke out against the White house leakers... Or perhaps the Media spreading leaked documents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BionicPi   
BionicPi

Yato, if someone were to say "Wow, that darned Trump administration got their just desserts with all those leaks", does it read as though they support the leaking of information for you? It does for me. I'm not trying to say that you condone the behaviour necessarily, but instead that your wording condones not necessarily the behaviour but something similar occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apatrickwsu   
apatrickwsu
Just now, Yato said:

I don't condone doxxing, or leaking of information. I said that in my original post. I do however, think that their censorship and discrimination resulted in people acting against them. This being the result of their actions. I think you guys are just misunderstaning me. 

 

I mean, I wonder how many of you spoke out against the White house leakers... Or perhaps the Media spreading leaked documents. 

leaking is not doxxing. Leaking is letting the public see info, I would and do condemn leaks that threaten national security. The transcripts of the calls with Mexico and Australia weren't that. The Chelsea Manning stuff I did have some issues with. Doxxing is publicly id'ing someone from a screenname. Often including harassment, possibly trying to get them fired, up to swatting or assault or murder. And online commenters were who got doxxed in the google story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
2 minutes ago, apatrickwsu said:

leaking is not doxxing. Leaking is letting the public see info, I would and do condemn leaks that threaten national security. The transcripts of the calls with Mexico and Australia weren't that. The Chelsea Manning stuff I did have some issues with. Doxxing is publicly id'ing someone from a screenname. Often including harassment, possibly trying to get them fired, up to swatting or assault or murder. And online commenters were who got doxxed in the google story.

Which I don't agree with, but the people being doxxed are involved with a corporation that discriminates, and censors information from the general public. They are partially responsible, for not standing up to the corporation. There are many instances of people going out of their way, to make people apologize, and amend things that happened that were discriminatory or morally bad. Whether or not they were directly involved with the incident, doesn't matter.

 

How would you like it if no one let you in on something important, because they thought you were too sensitive to handle the information? Then continued to lie to you, despite you figuring it out on your own? I'd be pretty mad, especially if it involved my very beliefs in which I ground myself in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Polygon   
Polygon

The whole situation is just madness. Google got put in an unwinnable scenario where firing him would somewhat prove the point and lead to the shameful doxxing and bad PR, but keeping him on would piss off many Google employees (some of which threatened to leave if he remained) and get equal (if not more) negative PR/doxxing for not firing the guy. 

 

The doxxing is straight up wrong, though.  In this instance there is no justification for it (not to delve into any differences between doxxing and 'leaking' because I am ill equipped to argue one way or the other, I admit). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BionicPi   
BionicPi
1 minute ago, Yato said:

How would you like it if no one let you in on something important, because they thought you were too sensitive to handle the information? Then continued to lie to you, despite you figuring it out on your own? I'd be pretty mad, especially if it involved my very beliefs in which I ground myself in. 

I'm a minor. This happens all of the time. It's beyond normal, I think it's recommended. And yeah sometimes its annoying, but, 

2 minutes ago, Yato said:

but the people being doxxed are involved with a corporation that discriminates, and censors information from the general public. They are partially responsible, for not standing up to the corporation. There are many instances of people going out of their way, to make people apologize, and amend things that happened that were discriminatory or morally bad. Whether or not they were directly involved with the incident, doesn't matter.

This is punishing an employee for the actions of the company. It's like if the US bombs some country, shooting a few random citizens for recompense. Is that reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SimplyAce   
SimplyAce

It is sad such a thing happened. I am sure that the meeting had good intentions & I wonder how it would've gone :/

 

You guys.... I think Yato is speaking some truth.

They can correct me if I am wrong, but this is what i have gathered from reading the relevant on-topic posts (at least the first couple( I am not much of a politics type person).

It doesn't seem like they're  supporting doxxing & so on.... They're  just pointing out that these tactics are used by Google against others without much consequences,but now they're inevitably feeling their own sword when it's used against them & people are airing Google's dirty laundry. It is sad that it's these few people getting punished for a company's mistake. And that though people shouldn't be threatening others, it is an action repeated across many mediums on a daily basis....sadly. But the general public isn't doing much to stop it."

Leaking information is wrong. Doxxing is wrong. Sending threats is wrong..... But it is the society that we live in to where this behavior happens constantly, and usually the audience this information is given to effects how the action is viewed (as right/justified or wrong) no matter if the action itself is indeed morally wrong.

There's no excuse for it..... But then there isn't an excuse for half of the effed up things that go on in our society. But there sure as heck are people willing to make one up.

.... Just saying. This whole thing is just messed up with no opponent being any less messed up than the other. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
1 minute ago, BionicPi said:

This is punishing an employee for the actions of the company. It's like if the US bombs some country, shooting a few random citizens for recompense. Is that reasonable?

What is striking? what is boycotting? It is like people don't have these abilities anymore or something. 

 

If Google began paying its employees a slave wage, you think people would strike? I would think so. If Google decided to go full Orwellian, and begin censoring the internet in spite of the first amendment and its position as the biggest propagator of information, you would think people would go on strike? I would think so. 

 

But no, these people wanted to be paid, rather than worrying about the future of their country and the free exchange of ideas and its impact on the future of mankind. This isn't McDonald's we are talking about, but something akin to one of the most powerful public entities in the world. It is on par with the Main stream media, even higher than that, since Google can operate even outside of its home country. Thus making it immune in some instances, and mostly unaccountable for its actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BionicPi   
BionicPi
9 minutes ago, Yato said:

What is striking? what is boycotting? It is like people don't have these abilities anymore or something. 

 

If Google began paying its employees a slave wage, you think people would strike? I would think so. If Google decided to go full Orwellian, and begin censoring the internet in spite of the first amendment and its position as the biggest propagator of information, you would think people would go on strike? I would think so. 

 

But no, these people wanted to be paid, rather than worrying about the future of their country and the free exchange of ideas and its impact on the future of mankind. This isn't McDonald's we are talking about, but something akin to one of the most powerful public entities in the world. It is on par with the Main stream media, even higher than that, since Google can operate even outside of its home country. Thus making it immune in some instances, and mostly unaccountable for its actions. 

What about people protesting war in the states? Doesn't mean some of them couldn't also be randomly shot. Can I, from hereafter, hold you individually responsible for the actions of the United States government (unless you start marching)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
34 minutes ago, BionicPi said:

Yato, if someone were to say "Wow, that darned Trump administration got their just desserts with all those leaks", does it read as though they support the leaking of information for you? It does for me. I'm not trying to say that you condone the behaviour necessarily, but instead that your wording condones not necessarily the behaviour but something similar occurring.

To me it sounds like they are glad it happened, because it helps their side win. Can't help what is already happened can you?

 

What I am doing, is accepting the results of a situation someone else caused. Still doesn't mean I condone anything. I am not supporting it. It is its own thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
2 minutes ago, BionicPi said:

What about people protesting war in the states? Doesn't mean some of them couldn't also be randomly shot. Can I, from hereafter, hold you individually responsible for the actions of the United States government (unless you start marching)?

You are now comparing apples and tomatoes. Corporations are not Countries (or people), and cannot be compared within reason. Now if I worked for Google, you damn right I would say you can hold me accountable for not speaking out against Google. Though I can't guarantee that I would be employed for very long to begin with due to my strong opinions. They probably won't even hire me. 

 

Anyways, I am off to bed. Nice debate. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday   
CaptainYesterday

Man, I haven't seen a group of people deliberately and offensively misinterpret someone since the Liberal media defamed James Damore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday   
CaptainYesterday
7 hours ago, Yato said:

Which is within their right as a private corporation

That might not actually be true.  Many lawyers and law professors say that he has a good case.  Raising awareness of your working conditions and work policies with co-workers is a protected action.

 

4 hours ago, Polygon said:

keeping him on would piss off many Google employees (some of which threatened to leave if he remained)

Letting him go pissed off a lot of people, too.  An anonymous Google poll showed that slightly more than half of the employees disagreed with his firing.

 

I'm really wondering where all this outrage was when Conservative personalities were being doxed, harassed, and swatted.  Milo got sent needles and knives in the mail, maybe a dead animal as well?  I believe someone named Mr. Repzion got swatted on a live stream.  Plenty of YouTubers who preferred to appear as cartoons/avatars in their videos got doxed.

 

It's almost like when bad things happen to Conservatives, people on the Left either don't care, or their heavily censored media outlets they get all of their news from refuse to report on it.  

 

It's always shocking to me when I have to tell people that we have regular violent riots in America by a literal far-left terrorist organization that is supported by some Liberal elected officials.  The echo chamber that they have enclosed themselves in don't tell them these things, it only tells them when Trump gets an extra scoop of ice cream, when Trump doesn't greet a disabled child at the White House (when he actually did), or when someone puts a giant, inflatable duck with Trump's hair cut in a park near the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief   
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief

@CaptainYesterday But why bring up such a messy situation as Milo? He got doxxed, but it was because he HIMSELF doxxed someone else. How exactly do you say on Milo's behalf , "I do not condone doxxing" when you're doing it for someone who condones, and has already, doxxed someone. Someone who could have got much worse than him, I might add. It's not that I'm condoning it, but you're basically saying, where were all these people who supported this one person against doxxing, when the person who doxxed them got doxxed? And there were plenty of people who spoke against this for Milo even on the left I might add.

@Ms. Maya the Bee Sorry this is turning chaotic :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CaptainYesterday   
CaptainYesterday

Who did Milo dox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now