I feel google was being open minded, but the other party was not, and actually being malicious...
basically: instead of reform, and fixing whats broken; to tear it down, as it is just another means of oppression.... (yes, that's the mindset of the movement).
Her research, looks to be mean spirited, and made to discredit google, so it can be blackmailed into whatever the ideology wants.
It is not meant to fix/improve the situation, but used as political amo. Hence it is just a political paper/propaganda, and not proper ai research.
Hiring an activist and then firing them before a paper is published can also be viewed as expecting them to be your activist. Maybe Google wanted to be part of the anti-establishment movement as long as its part focused on competitors.
I find the sequence of decisions made by Google problematic.
Until they describe in intimate detail what their management has been planning to filter they are effectively retracting all research from their institution as having this unknown bias. Like a tabaco lab that blocks all results against their products. That this was shoddy means nothing unless someone would have caught a Google positive piece as shoddy and actually stopped it at this process. I would guess no.
The right thing to do was let it be published, get external critique and end the relationship if most people with no money in the game thought it was bad science.
Was this outcome that difficult to predict based on the hiring interviews, and based on prior articles and public statements? In other words, would this come as a surprise to a half decent hiring manager and hiring committee?
