News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Margaret Mitchell fired from Google. Parent comment

Re:Margaret Mitchell fired from Google by cornel_io on Friday February 19, 2021 @11:56PM (#26201705)
I've said this before, but if it's not accurate then whoever said it publicly should be fired immediately because that is actionable if it's a lie. Google has extremely good lawyers and a PR machine that cares what they say. There's absolutely no way that they are plainly making it up.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Margaret Mitchell fired from Google by posguy on Saturday February 20, 2021 @03:09AM (#26202505)
Google has concealed and defended executives that are known sexual harassers: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se...

Google will happily take a slap on the wrist and pay out another few hundred million, as they have done just a few months ago. Might even pencil out PR wise to ensure Google controls the narrative on why these two employees were fired.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Margaret Mitchell fired from Google by knorker on Saturday February 20, 2021 @03:36AM (#26202630)
That's the difference between saying, and not saying.

Silence is not legally actionable (in this case). Saying false things is (in this case).

You can't compare the two.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Margaret Mitchell fired from Google by vkou on Saturday February 20, 2021 @06:14AM (#26203332)
I know nothing of the particulars of this situation, but you are committing a simple error in your reasoning.

The purpose of PR isn't to tell the truth. PR people don't get fired for lying.

The purpose of PR is to make whomever is paying you look good. Sometimes, that involves telling the truth. Sometimes, that involves telling a highly cherrypicked, out-of-context subset of the truth. Sometimes, that involves torturing the truth beyond any recognition. Sometimes, it has nothing to do with the truth.

We don't happen to live in a just world.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Margaret Mitchell fired from Google by dragonwriter on Saturday February 20, 2021 @12:23AM (#26201843)
If it's not true, it's a high-level multiple-executive strategic decision, probably including the CEO who has apparently been actively involved at least since the response to Gebru’s firing boiled over, not a rogue employee.

Which isn't to say you are wrong that they should be fired, but it's kind of like saying whoever in the US government was involved in inciting in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol should have been fired.

[ Parent | on HN ]