What I could read was and from the responses of her own teammates was the fact that the paper passed the internal review and that she already gave heads-up to the PR department about her work and they gave a heads up to her and suddenly a meeting pops-up and a manger's manager says to her that you need to either retract the paper or make certain changes. She was fine with the internal committee being anonymous but at this stage anyone would have demanded the same, i.e. who is the authority that thinks this paper sets a lower precedence for what google stands for i.e. some sort of human engagement and what does the authority do they take her at her word twist it and fire her by "accepting her resignation" what does this sound to you, for me a kind of high and might attitude by the authorities i.e. how come a black woman that too from the ethics department question our conception of the matter, let us how her what we can do Fire Her!!!.

This might sound a bit exaggerated but all of this is just putting google in bad light and top of that over 500 googlers have written a letter demanding an explanation for the same, those guys know about there internal workings more than you and me, so it is surprising how many review processes does google have, its just like double pressure first get the internal clearance and then work with the original reviewers of the conference. And now Jeff comes up with this explanation:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f2kYWDXwhzYnq8ebVtuk9CqQ....

And for not once he mentions that the paper did already pass the internal standard review process.

"based on her track record"? The fuck does that mean? If you wanna say that people shouldn't call out their employers, then say that. No need for character assassination.

Anyone can look up her tweets and her interactions with, eg, Yann Lecun, and make a pretty good inference.

I looked them up. I found the exchange robust but not extraordinarily so. She was firm but didn't seem to step out of line.

What inference was I supposed to make?

Her contributions to the exchange were certainly unprofessionally hostile (“I don’t have time for this.”), but in and of itself that sort of behavior isn’t a real problem. The actual problem is that as a person with a large following, her hostility precipitated harassment by her followers that ultimately drove Lecun from Twitter. For someone on the receiving end there isn’t a meaningful distinction between whether someone harasses them directly or whether they incite harassment by others.

From what I’ve read about Gebru and this situation it doesn’t seem implausible to me that had she identified the reviewers she would have named them in a public venue and characterized their criticisms as being driven by discriminatory bias or an intent to suppress her work. Obviously nobody is going to present criticism, regardless of whether the criticism is legitimate, if that is a possible consequence.

Call out her employers? No. I’m referring to the exchange she initiated with Yann Lecun that caused him to be harassed to such an extent that he withdrew from Twitter.