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

[Dr_Meinheimer]

She stunk as a candidate?

 

[exnihilo]

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.

We know some Google employees discussed manipulating results. They thought they could do it. Also, apparently the NSA has a main line into a Google. That was secret for years. So it doesn’t in any way seem far fetched that they could and would manipulate results. Personally I don’t trust Google, Facebook etc.

 

[ZMystiCat]

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.

Are you saying that we should ignore the message of hate groups who present themselves as Christian? If not, then which groups on the SPLC list shouldn’t be there?

give them a pass on their current activities

I’m hardly trying to use their history to excuse certain actions. It’s that people here keep bringing up unspecified actions as if everyone should just automatically know what the problem is.

I know it is virtually impossible to “prove” a nebulous term like “bias”

We’re hardly talking about it in nebulous terms. You claim, without proof, that Google intentionally introduces bias into their code. That’s something that’s verifiable in the algorithm or, in better terms, code comments or change descriptions. But for all the leaks, none have actually shown that.

But (and I am not trying to say you lack this ZM) common sense can make up for a lot of faulty “proofs”.

I’d call it paranoia, not common sense. Common sense uses experience and data to fill in the unknown. Paranoia tends to come with a lack of experience and openly not caring to get necessary data.

We know some Google employees discussed manipulating results.

And as I’ve already brought up, in the software engineering world, that means nothing. I haven’t kept track, but I’d be shocked if most ideas discussed ever make it into the product.

Also, to put things into perspective, Google has 85,000 worldwide employees (possibly more when you account for contractors). Those employees have multiple ways to communicate and discuss stuff from work to fun to internal tools to crazy ideas. With that many employees with such avenues, you’re bound to get such discussions for no other reason than the fun of it. Heck, consider the crazy stuff that gets discussed here!

But again, that is not in any way an indication of something that was actually put into practice. If that were the case, I wouldn’t have to [redacted rant about internal tool].

Also, apparently the NSA has a main line into a Google.

But just in case you’re referring to what I think you are, legally speaking, anything held on a company server must be given over to the government if they’ve gone through the necessary channels of being authorized to retrieve that data. This goes as much for Google as it does for Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, DuckDuckGo, etc. Manafort found that out the hard way, but it’s hardly secret.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

They thought they could do it. Also, apparently the NSA has a main line into a Google.

I’m guessing that you might be referring to a graphic in circulation about 5 years ago about efforts.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This had applicability before SSL was common place. Presently Google is almost SSL only both internally and externally. They do allow advertisements and maps data to be accessed without encryption though.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://transparencyreport.google.c...ge:1;series:time;groupby:os&lu=time_os_region

 

[TheLittleLady]

On Tuesday, the Caller reported that an anonymous source provided documents detailing the backlash to a March 2017 company-wide presentation,

An anonymous source, linked from a blog run by political pundits, written by another blog that is well known to never let the facts get in the way of a good headline, let’s just say I’m skeptical.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I love me some Google.

 

[exnihilo]

This had applicability before SSL was common place. Presently Google is almost SSL only both internally and externally. They do allow advertisements and maps data to be accessed without encryption though.

The data gets decrypted at some point. And at that point the NSA hooks in. Internal SSL protects the data in transit but the NSA isn’t just sniffing network traffic. They are hooking up to servers.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

They are hooking up to servers.

What do you mean by “hooking up to servers”?

 

[exnihilo]

I mean they have direct access to Google servers.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I mean they have direct access to Google servers.

Well that description is void of technical meaning or description. I;ve got to echo ZMystiCat on this one;

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If you’ve got a source that give a technical description of what you mean do share.

 

[exnihilo]

Well that description is void of technical meaning or description.

I can’t describe exactly what they do because I don’t know exactly what they do. I just know there are many different ways they could do it. Anytime you have transport encryption the data is decrypted at the end of the transportation line. That is where they’d hook in. That is exactly what the released documents describe in a general way.

 

[Cathoholic]

I’d call it paranoia, not common sense. Common sense uses experience and data to fill in the unknown.

Well ZMystiCat. You think the SPLC is “trustworthy” too.

There have been plenty of common sense experts that agree with Googles bias.

There has been plenty of internal leaks that have supported Google’s manipulation.

There have been plenty of Congreesional concerns raised.

You know the kind of data you are calling for almost necessesitates a search warrant and putting people under oath.

I don’t need that kind of evidence.

I am perfectly happy with the Government breaking them up with anti-trust laws. (But the people in Govt. lack the fortitude to do so).

You stick with the SPLC.

I’ll stick with the experts who have condenmed Google’s bias and manipulation.

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien . . .

That’s not condescending. Software Engineering (SWE) is one of many specialized knowledge area.

It is condescending.

I have put up (elsewhere) software engineering people who have discussed Google’s issues. (You know that.)

 

[Cathoholic]

TheLittleLady . . .

An anonymous source, linked from a blog run by political pundits, written by another blog that is well known to never let the facts get in the way of a good headline, let’s just say I’m skeptical.

And if that was ALL that has been going on, I would be just as skeptical.

But of course there has been much more.

 

[poche]

Could her pro-abortion gender ideology have had anything to do with her loss?

 

[Theo520]

Are you saying that we should ignore the message of hate groups who present themselves as Christian? If not, then which groups on the SPLC list shouldn’t be there?

Please show how they are a hate group without referencing SPLC designation, what hateful actions have they pushed that should put them in the company of the KKK. As of now you seem to be pushing a circular argument when we’ve clearly said pushing traditional family values doesn’t equal ‘hate group’

Or cutting to the nub of it, what violence against a group has their activities initiated.

 

[Cathoholic]

Theo520 to ZMystiCat . . .

Please show how they are a hate group without referencing SPLC designation, what hateful actions have they pushed that should put them in the company of the KKK. As of now you seem to be pushing a circular argument when we’ve clearly said pushing traditional family values doesn’t equal ‘hate group’

Or cutting to the nub of it, what violence against a group has their activities initiated.

.

ZMystiCat.

I;ve got to echo Theo520 on this one;


If you’ve got a source that gives an actual description of what you mean do share.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Warning: A few posts incoming. The tl;dr



Also, some self-deprecating humor


Edit: Oh no, I accidentally overwrote my clipboard that had half of what I had to say!

Edit 2: Here’s my attempt to recreate what was lost

Well ZMystiCat. You think the SPLC is “trustworthy” too.

And you’ve been pretty adamant about not offering evidence to the contrary, so…point? Am I supposed to be offended by this?

There have been plenty of common sense experts that agree with Googles bias.

What even is a “common sense expert”?

There has been plenty of internal leaks that have supported Google’s manipulation.

No, there haven’t. The closest thing to come is a discussion employees had, but I’ve already pointed out the folly of using that twice in this thread alone.

There have been plenty of Congreesional concerns raised.

That’s hardly proof of anything, especially consider the joke such hearings sometimes turned into with both Facebook’s and Google’s hearings. Bear in mind, Congressman aren’t generally tech experts. They’re lawmakers, most of whom at best know no more than the average person.

I mean, are we now going to say the Knights of Columbus are corrupt because congressmen have grilled people over their association with the organization?

You know the kind of data you are calling for almost necessesitates a search warrant and putting people under oath.

I don’t need that kind of evidence.

Or a leak, which Google is hardly in any shortage of…

And for the claims you’re making, yes, you do. You’re making claims of intentionally messing with a product to produce liberally biased results. If I accuse you of something, do I need barely any evidence for it to be taken as true?

I’ll stick with the experts who have condenmed Google’s bias and manipulation.

What experts?

I have put up software engineering people who have discussed Google’s issues.

Who were they and what did they say?

 

[Cathoholic]

ZMysticat to Cathoholic (on meme) . . .

I will find you and make you cite your sources.

You already have.

.

ZMysticat to Cathoholic . . .

And you’ve been pretty adamant about not offering evidence to the contrary, so…point?
Am I supposed to be offended by this?

No. You are not supposed to be “offended”.
You are just supposed to back up your claims about the SPLC as per requested.

.

ZMysticat to Cathoholic . . .

I mean, are we now going to say the Knights of Columbus are corrupt because congressmen have grilled people over their association with the organization?

Not here we are not going to say that.
But we are just going to watch you back up your claims about the SPLC as requested hopefully.

.

ZMysticat to Cathoholic . . .

Bear in mind, Congressman aren’t generally tech experts.

Another condescending (and irrelevant) comment. They don’t need to be “experts”. They can consult with “experts” prior to hearings.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Presently Google is almost SSL

I’d imagine Google uses TLS for everything now. I know it is used on GMail unless something prevents encryption. And I guess TLS is technically just SSL’s successor, but I take these acronyms seriously!

The data gets decrypted at some point.

TLS, as far as we know, keeps communication between client and server secure. Unless you have the private key associated with the public key used to encrypt the data, you basically have no way to decrypt the data. Brute forcing is also out of the question. As far as I know, all the supercomputers in the world won’t be able to brute force the key before we’re all long gone.

decrypted at the end of the transportation line. That is where they’d hook in.

While you’ve provided the non-technical bar napkin drawing overview, that’s not really providing any evidence for your claims. In fact, the total lack of technical detail makes me think such evidence doesn’t exist.

Please show how they

Considering that no one has provided even one group, I don’t even have a “they” to go on. I was merely asking for clarification because you expressed concern at putting Christian groups on due to it “tilt[ing] the conversation”. That, to me, sounds like you’re asking for Christian groups to get a pass.

what hateful actions have they pushed that should put them in the company of the KKK

Frankly, using the KKK as the standard for what constitutes a hate group is like using Charles Manson as the standard for what constitutes a murderer. You don’t have to be that extreme, and such comparisons are hardly a Christian way of judging morality.