I feel that the greater risk is to publish the paper without hyperlinks, as the reader has no way of knowing which, if any, arguments the author attempted to support and in what ways. However, without those links, the Google Memo reads like a blog post, opinion piece, or very long comment from a comment section, and appears to be entirely without any attempt to support its core arguments. I can understand why some outlets chose to exclude them, since a strong argument can be made that their mere existence lends the document more credibility than it objectively deserves. It is a journalistic risk to both omit and include the original hyperlinks. Many readers may not do so, and may simply assume that the mere presence of a hyperlink is conclusive evidence that strong, credible support exists for the linked assertion. That is, if the reader clicks on them, reads them, and comes to a conclusion using a solid, accepted metric about their relative credibility. Reproducing them actually weakens the individual arguments the author makes and by extension, the larger arguments. A majority of the Google Memo’s links do not fulfill these expectations. Readers have been taught by experience that hyperlinked text generally indicates source material that is supportive of the text idea, related directly to the text idea, and/or credible. The Google Memo is being reproduced without the original hyperlinks, which is both understandable and, in my opinion, a poor journalistic choice. This second argument is far more subjective and morally based, and as such I feel it is beyond both my scope and ability to address fully at this time.Ī note about reproductions of the Google Memo. In short, it appears to be that Google is suppressing the dialogue around the first core argument, and that because of this, Google is vulnerable in several ways. I don’t feel that I have sufficient knowledge of Google’s internal policies to fairly address that argument. I will address the other core argument at another time. The first is that dramatic or noteworthy unequal levels in gender for key positions, both in level (management and above) and in type (STEM, tech, dangerous work, high status work), could be explained by 1) biological 2) preferences 3) in occupational choices. Direct quotes from sources are also italicized.Īs I understand it, the“Google Memo” (as I refer to it here) appears to have two core arguments. *A note on formatting: direct quotes from Damore are italicized, and hyperlinks are indicated by bold type or directly linked. It will not discuss the relative morality of the arguments themselves. This paper will only focus on the relative weakness or strength of the Google “Echo Chamber” Memo. He is still in arbitration talks with the company, a spokesman for the Dhillon Law Group said Friday.“Source?” An academic exploration of the James Damore’s Google “Echo Chamber Memo” Damore sued Google in January 2018 but opted to go into arbitration last October. In the memo, Damore criticized the company’s push for gender and racial diversity in its workforce, and suggested that the scarcity of women in tech could be explained by biological differences. ![]() Google fired Damore in 2017 after an internal memo he wrote came to light. ![]() “This ruling is a significant step forward for all California workers, and sends notice to Silicon Valley that discrimination of any kind will not be escape legal scrutiny,” lead plaintiffs’ attorney Harmeet Dhillon said in a statement. The ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Brian Walsh means the case, which Damore exited late last year in favor of arbitration, can move forward into the discovery phase. A judge on Friday rejected Google’s motions to throw out a lawsuit brought by fired engineer James Damore accusing the internet company of discrimination against conservatives, men and white people.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |