I'm not really sure what your point is. At a very basic level: Of course they would not prefer it published. Just like they would prefer not to have transparency, pay competitive market salaries, give free lunches, have an HR department, etc. We all prefer things if we can get them.
I would, however, expect that if a company hired a researcher to study whether their work is ethical, then it's silly to get in that researcher's way. If my company hired someone to ensure their supply chain for manufacturing does not involve sweatshops, then it certainly wouldn't look good if my company prevents him from saying so. If we aren't prepared for uncomfortable truths, we should not hire people to look into them.
I honestly think there are other reasonable reasons to get rid of this researcher than what you are positing.
I think Gebru's reaction, the ultimatum and the email, were what led to her firing. Curious what you think the reasons to fire her were.
> You mention her having a research career - but she's not in research. She works at Google. Her job, however they try to fancy it up, is to sell ads. Explaining to people that language models are racist and energy inefficient is not a good way to sell more ads,
She was hired to do research, and her job was explicitly related to ethics, so this is very much in line with her work. My company has a research arm, and people who are hired into it are very much expected to publish papers and will be judged based on their ability to do so. Having disagreements about what the company does in public, and sending sensational emails to coworkers would not be tolerated here either, though.