Report: Google employees complained word ‘family’ was homophobic in company presentation

[Cathoholic]

NEWSFAMILY, GENDER, HOMOSEXUALITYFri Jan 18, 2019 - 5:20 pm EST

Report: Google employees complained word ‘family’ was homophobic in company presentation​

Calvin Freiburger

January 18, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Some employees at internet giant Google find the mere mention of the word “family” to be a slight against homosexuals because they cannot procreate, according to private documents leaked this week to the Daily Caller .

On Tuesday, the Caller reported that an anonymous source provided documents detailing the backlash to a March 2017 company-wide presentation, which repeatedly used the word “family” to denote households with children. One employee reportedly stormed out of the presentation, then wrote a lengthy post explaining his displeasure. . . .

. . . . “My family consists of me and several other trans feminine folks, some of whom I’m dating. . . . . “Just because we aren’t a heterosexual couple . . . doesn’t mean we’re not a family,” another employee added in agreement.”

At one point, Google vice president Pavni Diwanji even responded, conceding that “what we said at tgif might have caused concerns in the way we talked about families.” He asked the employees to help “get to a better state” and “teach us how to talk about it in inclusive way, if you feel like we are not doing it well.”

The dispute is the latest in a series of leaked private conversations that appear to show the dominant ideologies at Google are dramatically out of step with the country at large, despite publicly professing to offer completely nonpartisan services.

Previous Google scandals include analysis finding a heavy left-wing tilt to news sources, estimates that Google may have swung as many as 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016, partnership with the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center for flagging “hate,” and various leaked private communications, among other incidents.

Conservative commentator Dennis Prager is currently taking Google to court for placing more than 80 of his Prager University YouTube videos in “restricted mode,” allegedly under false pretenses, and earlier this week the pro-life group Live Action saw one of its undercover investigation videos deleted for alleged “sexually provocative content.” YouTube restored the video after Live Action publicly objected . . . .

Report: Google employees complained word ‘family’ was homophobic in company presentation - LifeSite

Homosexual, transgender, and even straight childless employees allegedly took offense at 'family' being used to imply having children.

www.lifesitenews.com

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Conservative commentator Dennis Prager is currently taking Google to court for placing more than 80 of his Prager University YouTube videos in “restricted mode,”

I’m looking forward to watching that case. The last attempt was dismissed because their “failed to alledge that YouTube was a state actor” (or arm of the government). That’s necessary for a Constitutional First Amendment violation. They still make the same assertion in the new case and are simultaneously adding a fee other angles of attack.

 

[Cathoholic]

I’m looking forward to watching that case. The last attempt was dismissed because their “failed to alledge that YouTube was a state actor” (or arm of the government). That’s necessary for a Constitutional First Amendment violation. They still make the same assertion in the new case and are simultaneously adding a fee other angles of attack.

It’s a proverbial David and Goliath situation.

Unless there is enormous grace the little guy (PragerU) will get crushed.

 

[ZMystiCat]

As a Google employee, I get the feeling that the actual effect of this on Google is negligible at most. If they’re trying to police employee usage of the word “family”, then they’re doing a terrible job, because I haven’t heard anything about it. This is despite the fact that they’re pretty open about the various ways that they’ve made certain groups feel unwelcome. Maybe high-level execs now watch their language at meetings, but if that’s what they want to do, then that’s their prerogative.

Ultimately, I’d hardly call this a scandal.

(Disclaimer: These are my own thoughts about my experiences. They should not be taken as an official statement by Alphabet or any of its child companies.)

finding a heavy left-wing tilt to news sources, estimates that Google may have swung as many as 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016

I’m not saying that these didn’t happen, but the actual details may not be quite as scandalous.

partnership with the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center for flagging “hate,”

I’m not really sure what the problem here is. While the SPLC can get a bit carried away in exactly how they discuss complaints, they ultimately are the most notable source on hate groups. And contrary to the linked article’s claims, I’d hardly call them anti-Christian. Plenty of Catholic and Christian groups are not featured on their site as hate groups. Even the Knights of Columbus, named after Christopher Columbus, haven’t made the list of hate groups despite the SPLC taking issue with the name.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sorry ZMystiCat. I wasn’t attempting to hide the citation.

With all the pre-formatting in copy and paste these days it cuts down dramatically on the characters allowed for the stories (so sometimes I take the links out to save “space”.)

.

Could Google influence the presidential election?​

By David Shultz Oct. 25, 2016

How much could Google influence the 2016 election?​

. . . . By Epstein’s calculations, biased Google results could shift the vote in November by up to 2%, or about 2.6 million votes. This may not seem huge, but many presidential elections in the United States have been decided by margins narrower than that. .

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/could-google-influence-presidential-election

ZMystiCat . . .

the SPLC can get a bit carried away

ZMystiCat. The SPLC has lost their credibility a long time ago (at least with me) with bizarre leftist accusations. (This is exactly WHY Big tech hired them in my opinion.)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It’s a proverbial David and Goliath situation.

I think it’s more a matter of citing an actual violation in the right court. I’ve read through original court filings and it appeared that they didn’t understand USA Constitutional Free Speech. In the second filling they state their right to express, but when they allege YouTube’s duty to deliver the case looks like some that have previously happened that ended in favour of the defendant.

 

[ZMystiCat]

With all the pre-formatting in copy and paste these days it cuts down dramatically on the characters allowed for the stories (so sometimes I take the links out to save “space”.)

I think it is worth noting that the article points out that there is no evidence that Google, Facebook, or Twitter have deliberately manipulated results in order to steer the election in a particular direction. The study ultimately is more about the psychological and sociological effects of these technologies and their potential for harm, even without malicious intent on the part of those developing them.

And I did read the part about Google’s autosuggestions, but that’s hard to p(name removed by moderator)oint the cause of. It could just be a bias for Hillary seeping through an algorithm that doesn’t add its own bias. Considering that none of the many leaks to conservative outlets have contained anything, whether code or a proposed change, that would make Google more biased, I have serious doubts that there’s anything malicious in the product.*

Now it is known that companies like Facebook and YouTube have tailored results to a person’s political leanings, but that of course cuts both ways, and I’m not sure if that was deliberate or an unintended result of their algorithms that try to cater results.

* And before anyone mentions locked-down code, bear in mind that, with a few exceptions, Google keeps all its code in one place. Those exceptions would include things like Android and Chrome, which are open source and available to even those not in Google.

The SPLC has lost their credibility a long time ago (at least with me) with bizarre leftist accusations

Such as?

(This is exactly WHY Big tech hired them in my opinion.)

I’d imagine large tech companies hired them because:

1. They deal with hate in general terms, not on a specific type of hate group or targeted group like, for instance, the ADL does.
2. They’re relatively unbiased. While some ideological and business bias may creep in at times, their labelling of extreme Catholics doesn’t cause them to extend to all Catholics, nor does their labelling of white nationalism cause them to turn a blind eye to black nationalism.
3. They deal with hate on a nationwide scale and are very well-known for doing it. They’re not some small watchdog group focusing solely on California or Texas.
4. They are, despite your personal opinions, generally considered the most trustworthy source on this matter.

I mean, do you have a better example of who these companies could consult?

 

[Cathoholic]

I think it is worth noting that the article points out that there is no evidence that Google, Facebook, or Twitter have deliberately manipulated . . .

Wait a minute.

You asked for a citation. I gave you one.

Now you are putting an argument in my mouth that I never made (on this thread).

I never said there is “EVIDENCE” to the above (on this thread). I am merely reporting a story about language usage within the Google firm.

.

Cathoholic . . .

The SPLC has lost their credibility a long time ago (at least with me) with bizarre leftist accusations

ZMystiCat .

Such as?

No. If you don’t know by now, a pep talk from me probably won’t help you on this.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Wait a minute.

You asked for a citation. I gave you one.

Now you are putting an argument in my mouth that I never made (on this thread).

I’m not trying to claim you said anything. I’m pointing out that the article you cited in response pointed out that there was no “scandal”, as the article you quoted in the OP described. A scandal requires actually acting in a way that is immoral, and there’s no evidence Google did that. Even the slight evidence, which was not peer-reviewed, of there being bias in autosuggestion hardly indicate anything scandalous on their part except maybe to those who don’t understand software engineering.

No. If you don’t know by now, a pep talk from me probably won’t help you on this.

I’ve seen numerous complaints lodged against the SPLC of them incorrectly labelling X group as a hate group. In absolutely every instance, looking deeper left me agreeing with the SPLC’s assessment. Sure, there were times I found some of what they said worrying, but those worries have yet to manifest in them suddenly deciding that the Catholic Church or Christian religion is a hateful.

And barring any actual evidence to the contrary, I’ll continue sticking by the SPLC being a generally trustworthy source on the matter.

 

[Cathoholic]

ZMystiCat (on the “SPLC” or Southern Poverty Law Center) . . .

In absolutely every instance, looking deeper left me agreeing with the SPLC’s assessment.

That is exactly what I would have thought you would have said.

And there you have it! You agree with the SPLC.

.

ZMystiCat . . . .

And barring any actual evidence to the contrary, I’ll continue sticking by the SPLC being a generally trustworthy source on the matter.

Far be it from me to tell you otherwise ZMystiCat.

(Enough people KNOW about the SPLC where they probably have there minds made up, so I am not going to waste my time going over it again here.)

 

[Cathoholic]

ZMystiCat . .

Even the slight evidence, which was not peer-reviewed, of there being bias in autosuggestion hardly indicate anything scandalous on their part except maybe to those who don’t understand software engineering.

(Bold mine)

Why the condescending remark?

There are plenty of conservative software engineering people who have said otherwise (and some “not so conservative ones” too). I’ve unpacked that all before too.

There is plenty of “understanding” by people as to what is going on at Google.

 

[poche]

If Google is that liberal and that biased toward Hillary Clinton and that influential then why didn’t she win?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And before anyone mentions locked-down code, bear in mind that, with a few exceptions, Google keeps all its code in one place .

I kind of feel like to the general public that code is in the same realm as magic; it’s not something that is widely understood and seen as potentially very powerful. The same might be said of mathematics. But given the high amount of overlap between the two fields that may not be saying much. It’s rare that when something that is thought to be news worthy showing up in a search result is accompanied by an understanding of some of the concepts behind search. One example would be when someone edits something on Wikipedia which surfaces through a knowledge panel on Google Search (which is probably one of the alleged Google infractions with the the easiest explanations).

ZMystiCat:

Even the slight evidence, which was not peer-reviewed, of there being bias in autosuggestion hardly indicate anything scandalous on their part except maybe to those who don’t understand software engineering.

Why the condescending remark?

That’s not condescending. Software Engineering (SWE) is one of many specialized knowledge area. A background in SWE or a related field can be a positive indicator for someone being able to understand how a basic autosuggest algorithm might work and how a specific suggestion might rise to the top and it not being an expression of the developer(s) behind it.

Take it to mean exactly what it says. Speaking as a Software Engineer (by degree and by career) I agree with the statement. My parents and siblings are not Software Engineers and have little understanding for that realm. Their specialize dknowledge is in other realms. They will plainly state that they don’t have a deep understanding in my knowledge area, and I state that I don’t have a deep understanding in theirs.

 

[angel12]

the backlash to a March 2017 company-wide presentation, which repeatedly used the word “family” to denote households with children.

That would also be hurtful to couples who are unable to have children.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Why the condescending remark?

Sorry, it wasn’t meant to be condescending.

The fact of the matter is that software engineering is full of potential oversights. You have to design the architecture, come up with the algorithms, put it into code, and maintain that code without breaking anything. Much of the work of software engineering research and language development is actually design to help minimize oversight.

When I look at the potential that Google auto-suggestion or news results have a potential bias, I don’t think that was intentional. It seems more likely that it is reflecting a bias of (name removed by moderator)ut. As conservatives love to point out, major news sources tend to lean to the left, and if Google isn’t introducing a bias of their own, the results are likely going to reflect that left-leaning bias of the (name removed by moderator)ut. That’s a potential oversight.

Of course, it may not be an oversight. It may be a conscious design decision to avoid ever getting in the habit of introducing bias or avoid potential problems introducing such bias leads to. I’m not on the search team and don’t follow their work, so I don’t know.

Now maybe to someone who doesn’t experience stuff like that on a day-to-day basis, it seems like the company is intentionally introducing bias. To a software engineer, though, I’d imagine it leads more to questions like:

• Where was the oversight?
• Does the team have a cultural blindspot?
• Are there design concerns with the alternative? If so, what’s the better option from a design, engineering, and/or business perspective?

Basically, it’s like how if someone has never worked retail, they may be less sympathetic to someone working it. It’s not that the person is stupid, just that they lack the experiences to help them better understand what is going on.

There are plenty of conservative software engineering people who have said otherwise (and some “not so conservative ones” too). I’ve unpacked that all before too.

But not once have they ever given actual proof of bias. At best they’ve linked to emails or internal forums, but that is, again, something anyone in software engineering would know means very little in terms of what actually makes it into the product.

There is plenty of “understanding” by people as to what is going on at Google.

Let me just say that unless you work for a company, you don’t really understand what is going on, and it is incredibly arrogant to think otherwise. Even before getting into tech, I was relatively well-informed on what was going on in the industry, but it hardly left me with a good picture of what was to come at the couple big tech companies I’ve worked for.

It’s like the difference between reading about a place and living there. Sure, you can pull from some personal experience about where you live, but it’s probably not going to match what it’s like when you get there.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

The Russians of course. Where have you been.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

That would also be hurtful to couples who are unable to have children.

Meh, more like people being extremely over sensitive. A couple unable to have children isn’t really a family either. They are a couple. A family requires more than just a couple. It’s what the word means. They’d be a family if they adopted some kids, in which case I don’t know why they would feel excluded from “family”.

If “family” refers to any random grouping of people, then it has no meaning at all. And yes, I realize that it all depends on context, but the context being referred to here is actual family units, not to abstract uses of the word.

 

[Theo520]

I’m not really sure what the problem here is. While the SPLC can get a bit carried away in exactly how they discuss complaints, they ultimately are the most notable source on hate groups. And contrary to the linked article’s claims, I’d hardly call them anti-Christian. Plenty of Catholic and Christian groups are not featured on their site as hate groups. Even the Knights of Columbus, named after Christopher Columbus, haven’t made the list of hate groups despite the SPLC taking issue with the name.

That SPLC doesn’t label all christian groups as hate groups is not a vindication. Just by selecting a couple of the most vocal, they tilt the conversation.

Also, all should stop using their noble history to give them a pass on their current activities. An organization lobbying for traditional family values is not the same as the KKK, yet the SPLC uses the same brush on both. Maybe they should create a new category and label such groups as “not woke yet” instead of calling them a "hate group"

 

[Cathoholic]

ZMystiCat . . .

But not once have they ever given actual proof of bias.

Look ZMystiCat. If you want to think this way I am OK with that.

But for me? I know it is virtually impossible to “prove” a nebulous term like “bias”. But (and I am not trying to say you lack this ZM) common sense can make up for a lot of faulty “proofs”.

 

[Cathoholic]

Myself . . . .

Unless there is enormous grace the little guy (PragerU) will get crushed.

For potential lurkers here that may not know Dennis Prager or PragerU, here is a microcosmic introduction regarding his worldview for you.

God bless.

Cathoholic