The world is too large and complicated to say that people should not hold an opinion unless they have all the facts and have personally evaluated arguments by primary sources. No one ever has all the facts and society is necessarily based on trust and trusted sources.
You are asking your reader to have as much or more evidence to form an opinion as to convict someone. Actually much more. In a trial, the juror does not get to see "all" the evidence and interpret it for themselves.
I don't need to attend a 40 hour trial and then spend additional research time evaluating exabits to form an opinion on about Dr. Gebru's situation. I'll freely admit I don't know the details, have not read internal documents but I have read the claims and Google's defense against them.
Her claim that she was fired for "embarrassing them in a paper" does not seem extraordinary in any way. Their defense that she resigned as a result of one simply "following the logical chain of future events" seems like legalese hand waving. Their refusal to accept a simple "I am not actually resigning" from her seems to codify her claim.
That is enough right there for me to be very comfortable in forming an opinion. Her following claim that the firing was racially motivated now also seems plausible and I would need more than a "no it wasn't" from Google particularly in light of the firing people who protested sexual harassment and unionization.
Then you've done more research than most people, as you've at least seen both sides of the story. I suppose the main point I'm trying to make with this piece is that, in order to have an opinion, it should not be easy to present crucial omitted evidence that could change it.
That being said, the Gebru story is just an example, and I still think, especially in the era of misinformation, we should, in general, do our due dilligence in backing up our beliefs, more so than we have in the past.
You are asking your reader to have as much or more evidence to form an opinion as to convict someone. Actually much more. In a trial, the juror does not get to see "all" the evidence and interpret it for themselves.
I don't need to attend a 40 hour trial and then spend additional research time evaluating exabits to form an opinion on about Dr. Gebru's situation. I'll freely admit I don't know the details, have not read internal documents but I have read the claims and Google's defense against them.
Her claim that she was fired for "embarrassing them in a paper" does not seem extraordinary in any way. Their defense that she resigned as a result of one simply "following the logical chain of future events" seems like legalese hand waving. Their refusal to accept a simple "I am not actually resigning" from her seems to codify her claim.
That is enough right there for me to be very comfortable in forming an opinion. Her following claim that the firing was racially motivated now also seems plausible and I would need more than a "no it wasn't" from Google particularly in light of the firing people who protested sexual harassment and unionization.