Mar 26

Google Employee 1:
I get that they were trying to ensure diversity of political thought, but including the
president of The Heritage Foundation is a bit extreme.

Mar 26
Google Employee 2:
A bit?

It's not only problematic for its antiLGBTQ positions. Remember the role it played in
pushing for murderous foreign policy (Nicaragua, Cambodia, Angola, ... I'm forgetting a
lot, I bet), but also its positions on climate change (they don't really believe it's real),
healthcare (sick poor people better croak ... sorry I mean they better sign up for a
marketbased solution to healthcare), immigration reform (not for it).

I'm probably forgetting a bunch of stuff.

.

Mar 26
Google Employee 3:
Bit of a tangent, but Heritage was not always as extreme as they are now. An example
of how far rightward the Overton window has shifted: "Obamaromneycare" was their
idea. Now they're against it as too liberal
.

Mar 26
Google Employee 4:
I love how they introduce her extensive professional experience, and then at the bottom,
“most importantly", wife and mother (??)

President of The Heritage Foundation included on the Advanced Technology External

Advisory Council - Google Groups
https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/forum/m/#!topic/transparency-and-
ethics/mmkRygIWDyc2/

In all seriousness though, James' inclusion on the council is either horribly negligent or
outright malicious. Nothing the heritage foundation recommends should have any place
in policy we should endorse.

Mar 26
Google Employee 1:

Wow I didn't notice that. I wonder if the members wrote their own bios...

Mar 26
Google Employee 5:

This is a group of advisors, not a social club. Hopefully we are never in the position
where we need advice on pros and cons of anti LGBTQ AI. On the other hand, we will
be approached to do various military / law enforcement projects and want to have a
good understanding of point of view of people who might approach us.

However, I think Peter Goettler should also be invited to give an earful of all the ways
we should NOT allow technology to be used for war and mass surveillance.

Mar 26
Google Employee 6:
I see no problem, it isn't like she is surrounded with like minded individuals. I think
having this diverse a board, even with someone who's view point is dramatically
different from yours or mine, is an overall win.

President of The Heritage Foundation included on the Advanced Technology External

Advisory Council - Google Groups
https://groups.google.com/a/google.com/forum/m/#!topic/transparency-and-
ethics/mmkRygIWDyc3/

Mar 26
Google Employee 2:
Google Employee 5 wrote:
This is a group of advisors, not a social club. Hopefully we are never in the position
where we need advice on pros and cons of anti LGBTQ AI. On the other hand, we will
be approached to do various military / law enforcement projects and want to have a
good understanding of point of view of people who might approach us.

We already are in the situation where (for example) trans and gender nonconforming
people have a terrible time getting through airport 'security'. The makeup of the panel
makes it sound to me like we'll be selling to military and LEAs, so we will indeed soon
be in the position where we need advice on topics that the Heritage Foundation is
amazingly wrong on.

Mar 26
Google Employee 5:
I think irrelevant personal nitpicking should be deemphasized. I get it that most folks
here, including myself, don’t agree with her views. But the question should really be
“does she or does she not have something to say on military/law enforcement
use of AI that we might find valuable in our decision making?”.

Since most people who approach us with project will be neocons (from both sides of
political spectrum), it might be valuable to hear neocon perspective on these matters.
Like there are things that we might think of as the same, which are actually different.
Besides:
1.Remember this?
2. Personally I would put “mostly importantly, husband and parent” in my autobiography,
what’s so wrong with that? If I had to do something different for a living to better support
my family, I am sure they would be someone else to do my job, while finding an
equivalent replacement for my family would be much more problematic. Why is it so
wrong?

Mar 26
Google Employee 5:
Again, we need to understand motivations for current design of airport security and why,
according to its proponents, our alternative solutions are seen as unacceptable. If
someone is willing to confidentially discuss their perspectives with us, it’s better than
having to directly take our arguments to Steve King.

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
Google Employee 6 wrote:
I see no problem, it isn't like she is surrounded with like minded individuals. I think
having this diverse a board, even with someone who's view point is dramatically
different from yours or mine, is an overall win.

This is essentially the paradox of tolerance: Tolerating diverse viewpoints is extremely

important, but that tolerance stops at viewpoints that are themselves intolerant.
Otherwise that tolerance is undermined.

The Heritage Foundation has a broad platform, with viewpoints on many things. I
disagree strongly on virtually every perspective of theirs that I've seen, but many of
those would still be valuable to have in the discussion.

However, their perspective on LGBTQ peoples is one of intolerance. Having that in the
discussion is not representative of tolerance, but in fact antithetical to it. And as such,
I'm very much against including them.

Mar 26
Google Employee 8:
Employee 7 wrote:
This is essentially the paradox of tolerance: Tolerating diverse viewpoints is extremely
important, but that tolerance stops at viewpoints that are themselves intolerant.
Otherwise that tolerance is undermined.

The paradox of tolerance, so stated, begs the question of what constitutes tolerance.
In cases where one needs to establish a forum of those who already agree on a
definition, and are willing to do without the participation of those they deem intolerant,
this is fine.
In cases where one needs to establish a platform wherein a concensus on what
constitutes a working shared definition of tolerance needs to be achieved, this
formulation is singularly unhelpful and leads to circularity and shouting matches with
people talking past one another.
It is important therefore to determine what the purpose of any given forum or minisociety
is, before using the paradox of tolerance formulation on it.

Mar 26
Google Employee 3:
Google Employee 8 wrote:
This is essentially the paradox of tolerance: Tolerating diverse viewpoints is extremely
important, but that tolerance stops at viewpoints that are themselves intolerant.
Otherwise that tolerance is undermined. The paradox of tolerance, so stated, begs the
question of what constitutes tolerance.

As stated in a previous thread, the @SonOfBaldwin approach seems maximally

inclusive and thus provides a clear, bright line. A line that Heritage is on the wrong side
of.

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
Is the definition of tolerance actually a contentious issue? The debate I've seen has
always been over the circumstances and ways that it's applied, not how it's defined.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a guide on how to apply tolerance, and the @sonofbaldwin
tweet thread that Google Employee 3: just linked to is honestly just a different framing of
the same principle.

Mar 26
Google Employee 8:
Ok, I'm bowing out of this one. :)

Mar 26
Google Employee 8:
Google Employee 7 wrote:
Is the definition of tolerance actually a contentious issue?
The question of what to tolerate versus what to consider beyond the pale of civilized
society, yes. This has been the whole point of deep thought for millennia. Past
generations were "wrong" by our standards, and certainly future generations will
consider us "wrong" by theirs.

Mar 26
Google Employee 9:
As a member of the LGBTQIA+ community of Googlers I strongly +1 the notion of the
Son of Baldwin approach.
Having “an opinion worth listening to” about technology assumes you are, in sum total,
worth listening to.

And the Heritage Foundation repeatedly tries to influence policy to make me and others
like me less fully included in our society at best and says we don’t or shouldn’t exist at
worst. Therefore in my view, they and their representatives are not worth listening
to/including.
All the best,

Mar 26
Google Employee:
Apart from that, it seems all the members either worked for, or rely on funding from the
US government.
That oh so important "diversity of thought" seems to only range from the center to the
far right.

Mar 26
Google Employee 8:
Google Employee 9 wrote:
As a member of the LGBTQIA+ community of Googlers I strongly +1 the notion of the
Son of Baldwin approach.

And as a member of the secular Muslim and Middle Eastern and Brown and raised in
West Africa and married to Jewish and married to bisexual and vocal political critic of
the US government, the Egyptian government, and just about any other government
community of Googlers, I strongly +1 the notion that nobody should question your
humanity or anything else about you, and I appreciate what I am sure is your readiness
to stand up for me in the same way. We need each other. I hold nothing but love and
peace towards you.

The question is not about what you and I want. The question is what kind of forum we're
setting up. If it's a forum to talk to everyone that is represented by some x% of voters,
for some nontrivial x, then we have to include people whose viewpoints you and I
consider abhorrent.

Hence my question: What forum are we setting up, and for what purpose?

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
What to tolerant versus what to consider beyond the page of civilized society is what I
meant by "the application of tolerance".

I feel like I'm being dragged into a weird semantic discussion here. All I'm saying is that
we shouldn't include the Heritage
Foundation in the discussion on the basis of "tolerance of different viewpoints" when
some of their viewpoints are distinctly INtolerant.

Mar 26
Google Employee 10
"A weird semantic discussion" seems to be the main content coming from this list, lately.
Discussion occurs around semantics and theory, oblivious to material impact/the fact
that when a discussion on a list this large becomes between only a few people (typically
all men) that's a really good sign it's either turned toxic and alienating or serves no
positive purpose.

To get back on track: what can those of us who want to do something about this actually
do? What are the correct channels for escalation?

Mar 26
Meredith Whittaker
+1000 Google Employee 10

If this council has any teeth (so far it looks like they'll meet and publish a report, so we'll
see), they will be making recommendations on the development and application of
technology that has been repeatedly shown to encode and amplify bias against those
already marginalized trans people, women, people of color, etc.. Beyond the bias that
gets "baked in" to these technologies, there's also the problem of oppressive or unjust
applications take (asyet unregulated) facial recognition being sold to law enforcement
with a history of racial profiling as an example.

If we are to take ethics seriously, we need ensure the perspectives of those most at risk
of harm from these technologies guide our decision making. Suffice to say, inviting the
CEO of the Heritage Foundation to occupy the position of Ethical Compass is...a far cry
from that.

Mar 26
Google Employee 12
Meredith Whittaker wrote:
+1000 Google Employee 11

If this council has any teeth (so far it looks like they'll meet and publish a report, so we'll
see), they will be making recommendations on the development and application of
technology that has been repeatedly shown to encode and amplify bias against those
already marginalized trans people, women, people of color, etc.. Beyond the bias that
gets "baked in" to these technologies, there's also the problem of oppressive or unjust
applications take (as yet unregulated) facial recognition being sold to law enforcement
with a history of racial profiling as an example.

If we are to take ethics seriously, we need ensure the perspectives of those most at risk
of harm from these technologies guide our decision making. Suffice to say, inviting the
CEO of the Heritage Foundation to occupy the position of Ethical Compass is...a far cry
from that.

Agreed. No need to try to convince me, at least, of that. However, I think it's worth
considering that this Advisory Council is in part a political creation. In the past in
complex areas where new technology affects society, Google has often taken a line of
"you can trust that we will do what is best for all." We are currently in a phase in which
people are increasingly unwilling to accept that.
This Council is in part a political step by Google: "OK, maybe you don't trust us, but at
least we have an Advisory Council, and you can trust at least some of them." (Note that
the link in the first message in this thread is to an internal page; the external blog post is
https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/externaladvisorycouncilhelpadvanceresponsible-
developmentai/).

The current unwillingness to accept Google's decisions are coming from both the left
and the right. Therefore, as a political move, it is necessary that this Council include
people from both the left and the right.
In that context, it does not seem extraordinary to me that one of the two people on the
Council who is not a technology or philosophy expert is someone acceptable to the
right. It is a tragic observation that there are few prominent people today in the U.S.
who are on the nonlibertarian right and yet willing to stand clearly for tolerance
of all people. The constraints of politics seem hard to negotiate here.

What does seem surprising to me is the other nondomain expert on the Council, William
Joseph Burns, is not from the left, but very much from the political center.

Mar 26
Google Employee 13:

+1 Google Employee 5
I suspect my little brother who just got into the Academy of Sciences for Aeronautical
Engineering would agree with you that "most importantly, husband and parent"
described him.

The notion of tolerance being bandied around here seems to amount to "tolerance for
those who think like I do", which amounts to no tolerance whatsoever.

I'd rather see Rand Paul, Jim Webb, or Tulsi Gabbard on the committee, but doesn't
mean I or anyone else should use irrelevant criterion to oppose membership.

Mar 26
Google Employee 14

Google Employee 13 I think that people have been very clear that the problem with the
Heritage foundation isn't that they "don't think like I do" but that they actively and
stridently advocate for religiously based anti LGBTQ+ policies that immiserate my
friends, colleagues, and comrades and has a real and damaging impact on their lives.
And that's just the LGBTQ+ issue, Joelle also brought up their disasterous role in
american foreign policy, which given the recent maven situation makes me very nervous
as well. This isn't a simple disagreement over the ideal tax rate, and framing opposition
to the heritage foundation as mere closemindedness is really offensive and dishonest.
The fact that they don't personally put you in any danger is probably really nice, but
please don't pretend like the organization isn't an existential threat to other people.

.
Mar 26
Google Employee 15
If anyone is under any illusions about how radically intolerant Kay Coles James is:
https://twitter.com/farbandish/status/1110624709308121088

especially this transphobic tidbit:

https://twitter.com/KayColesJames/status/1108365238779498497

As a trans Googler, I'm very upset about this appointment.

Mar 26
Google Employee 11

TBH Google Employee 13, this line of thinking is just plain *offensive* and denotes a
high level of privilege.

No, it is not about "tolerance for those who think like I do". It's intolerance to those who
don't see me as human. And I am *proud* to be intolerant of such folks.

Support for death squads, considering LBTQ people subhuman, thinking undocumented
aliens are subhuman, thinking poor people don't deserve medical care is NOT an
opinion. Those who think it's an opinion are saying that because they are not the target
demographic.

It will not be a "discussion" or a "debate" or a "marketplace of ideas" if the counterpart in

the "debate" was someone's whose entire family was thrown in a mass grave, someone
who is bankrupt by medical debt, someone whose loved one was killed by police
because they were profiled by some stupid AI algorithm.

But the target demographic is never involved in the "discussion". They are not the
"experts" with "years of experience".

The sheer blindness to power and its workings on this mailing list is just stunning

Google Employee 13

Google Employee 14 wrote:

I think that people have been very clear that the problem with the Heritage foundation
isn't that they "don't think like I do" but that they actively and stridently advocate for
religiously based antiLGBTQ+ policies that immiserate my friends, colleagues, and
comrades and has a real and damaging impact on their lives. And that's just the
LGBTQ+ issue, Google Employee 11 also brought up their disasterous role in american
foreign policy, which given the recent maven situation makes me very nervous as well.
This isn't a simple disagreement over the ideal tax rate, and framing opposition to the
heritage foundation as mere closemindedness is really offensive and dishonest. The
fact that they don't personally put you in any danger is probably really nice, but please
don't pretend like the organization isn't an existential threat to other people.

So, Google should only talk to people who cause no discomfort to any of our
employees? In that case, Google can't talk to pretty much anyone because there is so
much viewpoint diversity in the company. Perhaps talking to the more articulate
spokespeople for positions held by 40 - 50% of the US population is prudent.
Using words like "existential threat" is just cheap rhetoric.

Mar 26
Google Employee 11
I think it's offensive to assume that 50% of the US population is pro-death squads, anti-
affordable medical care, pro-profiling and police killings.

Also the term "more articulate spokes people" expression is problematic. It's not like
being more articulate about something
makes a viewpoint more valid, or that 50% of the people allegedly represented by the
heritage foundation are illiterate cro-magnons who need "experts" to talk for them.

Mar 26
Google Employee 9
I don’t know where you’re getting your statistics but 40-50% of the population does not
agree with the heritage foundation, at least in terms of the opinions on trans people.

https://www.ipsos.com/enus/newspolls/globalattitudestowardtransgenderpeople

Am I misunderstanding the reason for this group when I assume that it’s supposed to be
about increasing transparency and ethical thinking as opposed to increasing
misinformation and institutional bias?

Mar 26
Google Employee 13
Tossing around the word "subhuman" is just cheap rhetoric. I am sure she would deny
that she believes anyone is subhuman. I believe your language might even constitute
defamation of character
.
The "high level of privilege" I'm seeing is people like you who want to silence anyone
who disagrees with you.

I'd rather see a critic of the military-industrial complex on the board, as I mentioned
above. However, I think it is reasonable to defer to Google leadership on this matter.

Mar 26
Google Employee 5
So let's consider why one might want to have an AI ethics council and have a say
regarding its members. First of all, an ethics council is not for solving easy ethical
problems like “Should we design a tank that senses and shoots people who are
afraid?” or “Should our AI intentionally discriminate against LGBTQ individuals on the
basis of their status, rather than treatment disparities being an unwanted side effect?”.
We can just hire sort of reasonable people and make this calls on our usual team
meetings”.

The next purpose of picking council members may be politics. Like “I do not have
enough weight to convince management to listen to my opinions, so I will pack the
ethics council with well known experts who agree with me, and they will convince
the management”. This might be ethically justified in some rare cases like management
inclined to launch fear seeking tanks. But it is usually dubious, especially when politics
is not diverse and democratic.

Also, one might not wish to take full ethical responsibility for consequences of one’s
decisions and wish to nominate experts A, B, C who happen to agree with one’s views
to shift the responsibility into their hands. I think we can agree that this line of thought is
unethical and needs no further consideration. Pontius Pilate must decide to execute or
release his prisoner, but not appeal to the crowd whose sentiment he already knows
and then wash his hands. If you lent your support against Google building AI to improve
accuracy of Iron Dome, it should be up to you to sleep at night after reading news of
another 20 kindergarteners killed by a rocket.

I think the most ethical purpose of choosing an ethics council is to instead heighten
one’s own responsibility. I will hear the opponents of my point of view present their most
compelling argument and see if they can’t change my mind or at least incrementally
alter my proposal. As such, it’s important to seek people who strongly disagree with you
on positions likely to come before the council. Nor is it enough to seek people who
disagree with you on these positions and agree with you on everything else. First of all,
opinions do not grow on the trees. Neoconservatives and law and order advocates are
likely to have clustered opinions on other subjects. Second, should these other subjects
come before the council, we are as much in the need of having our opinions challenged.
Of course, council should also include advocates of your opinions to provide a
vigorous, balanced discussion, but it must also include likely opponents.
After long consideration, I agree with the decision to cancel Maven, both because of
what Maven, what American foreign policy is currently is and what Google is. However,
it’s also true that in general smaller use of AI is likely to translate into more US troops in
harms way. And, proportion of people of color and individuals of lower socioeconomic
class is much higher in US military than among Google employees who debated pros
and cons of the project. So, folks here who are talking about everyone’s privilege might
want to do some checking as well. I wish we had an opportunity to hear out
what Kay Coles James has to say on the subject. And then, I would probably still
support the project to be canceled and make my own peace with reports of American
kids being blown by IEDs

Mar 26
Google Employee 11:
Google Employee 13 wrote:
Tossing around the word "subhuman" is just cheap rhetoric. I am sure she would deny
that she believes anyone is subhuman. I believe your language might even constitute
defamation of character
.
Ok. Not "subhuman", just a "person with less rights". Better now?

Also, her tweets stand for themselves:

https://twitter.com/farbandish/status/1110624709308121088

The "high level of privilege" I'm seeing is people like you who want to silence anyone
who disagrees with you.

Who was silenced? You seem to be replying to everyone and expressing your opinion
freely without anyone stopping you.

Mar 26
Google Employee 13:
I will admit that I was taking a US centric view of that percentage. And according to
your survey, 49% of the US would seem to agree. Your poll's results are just for the
West, Japan, and South America. They list countries like India, but give no results.
There are no African countries. So, I don't think my rough approximation was off and so
I was decreasing rather than increasing misinformation.

Mar 26
Google Employee 16:
*Reads thread in trans*

Mar 26
Google Employee 15:
I don't know how one is going to start a conversation about, say, facial recognition, if
one of the members of this advisory committee thinks 1) that trans women are men and
2) I'm assuming, does not believe in the existence of nonbinary people.
If that's the place where someone is starting, then there is no conversation to be had.

Mar 26
Google Employee 17:
The far right, including outright fascists, often say very loudly "we are not fascists!" but
we are thinking people and can determine that for ourselves. Such as by looking at the
policies and beliefs they hold, espouse, and promote.

Mar 26
Google Employee 19:
Tossing around the word "subhuman" is just cheap rhetoric. I am sure she would deny
that she believes anyone is subhuman. I believe your language might even constitute
defamation of character. The "high level of privilege" I'm seeing is people like you who
want to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

Perhaps the cheapest rhetoric of all is to insinuate that your openly discriminatory views
are being silenced, and that the reason for it is the mere fact of disagreement.

It's true I disagree with Kay Coles James, but the fact of disagreement is not why she
shouldn't be on the council. It's true her presence makes some people uncomfortable,
but that is not why she shouldn't be on the council.

Rather, it is the specific views the disagreement is about that should disqualify her from
consideration. It's not the fact of disagreement or discomfort, but the content itself of the
disagreement, and the cause itself of the discomfort. You know this. But rather than
openly defend those specific discriminatory views, you resort the tired misdirection of
claiming that the mere fact of disagreement is what is being objected to. It's a cheap,
intellectually dishonest move, and it forces anyone trying to engage with you to side-
track into tedious meta-argument before proceeding.

Mar 26
Google Employee 17:
"Diversity" can cover a multitude of sins. If we include bigots, are we now "including
diversity of opinion" or are we including bigots?

Mar 26
Google Employee H:
I think it's a good time to just drop this here: "Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a
peace treaty"(https://extranewsfeed.com/toleranceisnotamoralprecept1af7007d6376, by
Yonatan Zunger, former Googler).

Cheers and please be nice to each other,

Mar 26
Google Employee B:
I'm not able to follow the memegen link I get a 404 page. Was it deleted?

Mar 26
Google Employee 17:
Google Employee 12: wrote:
> The current unwillingness to accept Google's decisions are coming from
> both the left and the right. Therefore, as a political move, it is
> necessary that this Council include people from both the left and the
> right.

I don't follow this conclusion at all. We do not have to include people we know we
shouldn't include just because they are called "the right" and the US is obsessed with
the left/right, Dem/GOP divide. If the right/GOP position is to accept bigots like
the heritage foundation, well, let them live with it. We don't have to.

> In that context, it does not seem extraordinary to me that one of the
> two people on the Council who is not a technology or philosophy expert
> is someone acceptable to the right. It is a tragic observation that
> there are few prominent people today in the U.S. who are on the
> nonlibertarian right and yet willing to stand clearly for tolerance
> of all people. The constraints of politics seem hard to negotiate
> here.

The constraints just don't seem to be constraints in the way you suggest. When faced
with the contradiction between two opposing goals, e.g. "include the political right wing"
and "exclude bigots", I say we prioritize "exclude bigots" and ask real hard why there
weren't non-bigots on the right to ask.

Mar 26
Google Employee 5:
We have to be more serious. Hopefully military overreach is still a big part of our AI
ethics? Well then, countries US is in conflict with tend to have different social norms
from US. How are we to work with those affected by US warfare if we can’t cooperate
with people we disagree with on some common goals?

I think this is a good example to follow:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/politics/tulsigabbardbasharalassadmeeting-
cnntv/index.html

Mar 26
Google Employee C:
There is a difference between working with people we disagree with, and working with
people who hold that people like me should not exist at all.

I have no prior knowledge of this individual other than what's been given in the thread,
so I have no position on whether the above observation applies to them.
Mar 26
Google Employee 13:

Peace requires that we acknowledge the rights of others to live according to their own
lights. And that might include disliking us in ways short of violence
.
Tulsi Gabbard is a good example to us all. She learned something about the folly of war
for ill considered objectives by fighting in one. She's willing to work with anyone in
Congress who will help avoid unnecessary war
.
Mar 26
Google Employee 3:
Google Employee 13 wrote:

Peace requires that we acknowledge the rights of others to live according to their own
lights. And that might include disliking us in ways short of violence.

Of course. But please recognize that trying to define away (e.g.) transness or non-
binaryness, as Heritage's president seems to want to to, definitely is violence.

Mar 26
Google Employee D:
People endorse different associations with different priorities in their mind. I supported
heritage foundation mostly because they are a strong supporter for where I am from,
and nobody else seems to care (mostly Democrats). It sucks that they may be on the
wrong side for certain social issues, but sadly I have something with higher priority to
deal with.

Best,

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
So first of all, there's a world of difference between meeting with the leader of competing
faction (even a competing faction with abhorrent views) in attempt to find common
ground and maybe push towards ending violence, and including those with abhorrent
viewpoints on your ethics council.

The former is looking at violence that's already occurring and figuring out how to end it,
even if we aren't in agreement. It's a sad necessity that this sometimes means leaving
horrible people in positions of power, and making concessions with them to end the
violence, because we lack the means to remove them without making things worse.
The latter lends credence of perspectives that justify violence and disenfranchisement,
thus increasing the likelihood of future violence and disenfranchisement in the future.
Also, I know it's not really the point, but there's an irony to the fact that you're looking to
the actions of Tulsi Gabbard in this thread, given her own past on LGBTQ rights:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfiletulsigabbardlgbt/index.html

Mar 26
Google Employee 12:
Google Employee 17: wrote:
> > The current unwillingness to accept Google's decisions are coming from
> > both the left and the right. Therefore, as a political move, it is
>>
necessary that this Council include people from both the left and the
> > right.
>
> I don't follow this conclusion at all. We do not have to include people we know we
shouldn't include just because they are called "the right" and the US is obsessed with
the left/right, Dem/GOP divide. If the right/GOP position is to accept bigots like the
heritage foundation, well, let them live with it. We don't have to.

I have no actual knowledge of the goals of the Advisory Council. I am suggesting that
one of the goals may be to provide political cover for actions that Google wants to take.

There is today substantial criticism of Google from the right in the U.S., from the
president on down. If the Council is to provide any sort of useful political cover, it must
in some way address that criticism. The only practical way to do that is to ensure that
the Council includes someone that the right will respect. (The right will continue to
criticize Google, of course; the purpose of the political cover is to provide a meaningful
counterargument: "if it's OK with X, then why isn't it OK with you?")

If you accept this argument, then I hope you see that we do have to "live with it." We
can't pretend that the right does not exist.

Of course you might not accept this argument. But I'm responding to your comment "I
don't follow this conclusion at all." You can reject the argument entirely: perhaps
Google should not seek political cover, perhaps it won't work. But if you accept the
argument, then I think the conclusion is at least plausible.

> > In that context, it does not seem extraordinary to me that one of the
> > two people on the Council who is not a technology or philosophy expert
> > is someone acceptable to the right. It is a tragic observation that
> > there are few prominent people today in the U.S. who are on the
> > nonlibertarian right and yet willing to stand clearly for tolerance
> > of all people. The constraints of politics seem hard to negotiate
> > here.
>
> The constraints just don't seem to be constraints in the way you suggest. When faced
with the contradiction between two opposing goals, e.g. "include the political right wing"
and "exclude bigots", I say we prioritize "exclude bigots" and ask real hard why there
weren't non-bigots on the right to ask.
That's a perfectly fine approach, but it doesn't help with the (hypothetical) goal of
political cover.

Mar 26
Google Employee 17:
Makes sense. I am neutral to the tactic of "political cover" in general, but as proposed
you are telling me it *mandates* that we include bigots on our ethics council, so I'm
against it.

Mar 26
Google Employee 13:
+1 Ian
Yep, Google needs political color. Insisting that everyone Google works with meet their
current standard of inclusivity means that those whose opinions are a mere couple
years behind the time must be shunned. Those who hold the opinions Bill Clinton or
even Barack Obama in 2008 held cannot be ignored by a company that hopes to
maintain market share and avoid regulation.

Mar 26
Google Employee 13:
If you are going to go after Tulsi on her past views on these topics, you'll have to go
after Obama (2008), both Clintons, and pretty much anyone in politics over age 60.
This degree of Puritanism is imprudent.

Mar 26
Google Employee 16:
Is the expectation that if we give a voice to people who want people like me to not exist,
that we can ignore them and have them accept that quietly? I don't think we can gain
political points with people without giving them things they want. The things the Heritage
Foundation wants are counter to Google's stated values.

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
So firstly, the Clintons and Obama were against gay marriage. Tulsi Gabbard was
actively working for conversion therapy, i.e. trying to make gay people not gay anymore.
There is a world of difference here.

Secondly, it's not just her past views. She's softened her views a lot, but her current
views still amount to "I don't like it, but I don't think it's the government's place to enforce
my distaste." So basically, she's still homophobic, but realizes that making that part of
her platform would ruin her political prospects in her own party (though I think this is
ruining her political prospects anyway).
Mar 26
Blake Lemoine:
I think that this thread is somewhat missing the point of what the purpose of this
advisory committee is. I have no specific inside information but the choices of who was
included and why they were included seem pretty clear to me so here's my opinion.
The world is afraid of us (us = Google in this context). Very, very afraid of us. Some
people are afraid of us because they think that we're going to take away their privacy in
service of Big Brother. Some people are afraid of us because they think we will grind
away their humanity in pursuit of profit maximization. Some people are afraid of us
because they are worried that we are solidifying and entrenching historical inequities.
People are so afraid of us that multiple powerful politicians from multiple cultures and
governmental backgrounds are threatening to end the existence of this company in its
current state. These are real existential threats coming from many people from diverse
political perspectives. The world is worried that we are a feral cat who will soon become
too large to put a bell on.

The purpose of this advisory committee is to ease those people's fears. The people on
this committee will be able to see how we conduct ourselves and be able to "vouch" for
the ethical standards which we'll uphold. Kay Coles James wasn't included so that she
can advise us about how our systems can more effectively oppress the various groups
of people who her organization has undeniably advocated against in the past and will
certainly advocate against in the future. She was included on that committee so that
she can advise us as to why we scare the everliving shit out of conservatives and what
we can do to ease their fears so they don't literally end our company's existence.
Because that's what's on the line right now. Very powerful politicians want to end this
company's existence. When Steve King and Elizabeth Warren are agreeing on
something that should be a gigantic red flag to everyone involved. The simple fact is
that Kay Coles James is unimpeachable in the eyes of the Republican party. If she
vouches for us then the ~40% of Californians who voted for the current president will
stop being deathly afraid of us. We need someone like her who will vouch for the fact
that we aren't trying to undermine the values of a sizable portion of the world's
population.

Because that's EXACTLY what they think right now. They think that we are trying to
subvert democratic rule through manipulation of information. And trust me, the irony of
that doesn't escape me. I work dead center in the middle of that ironic clusterfuck and
have been personally accused of contributing to it. But that is why we need someone
like Kay Coles James to vouch for us. We need her to understand what we do. We
need her to understand why we do it. And if there is something which we are doing
which really and truly is inherently terrifying to 40% of our neighbors then we need
someone like her to point that out to us.

I understand how personally offensive and insulting her inclusion on that committee
must be to many people at this company. If people feel the need to speak out against
her inclusion because of the horrible things which her organization has done and will
continue to do then I understand that. But I would simply ask that we have that
conversation with an accurate understanding of why she was included in the first place.
40% of our neighbors are afraid of us and we desperately need someone who can help
us fix that. If not her, then who? And if our response is to say that we don't care if
they're afraid of us and we don't have to pacify their fears ... then maybe they're right to
be afraid of us in the first place.

Mar 26
Google Employee E:
One subtext here, that I don't think Google is doing a good job of dealing with at the
moment, is that historically speaking Google's stated values have not been neutral.

Our original mission, "organize the world's information and make it universally
accessible and useful" is not a neutral mission, and we've gotten decades of opposition
from every government on Earth, many entrenched powerful institutions, and even
individuals who want to control information flow, from search to Gmail to Maps to
YouTube.

We are by the very nature of the company not neutral or apolitical.

.
Mar 26
Google Employee 9:
What I see here is consistent goalpost moving, deflection and evasion from the main
objection that many of us have to this organization “advising” Google:

They think that some of our colleagues either do not or should not exist.
This is and this alone that should bar them from a platform that Google sponsors or
“takes advisement from” in any way
.
It has not been made transparent what this organization will and should advise Google
on, so conjecture of what deal making or quid pro quo comes out of such advisement is
moot, however it should be noted that on this advisory board is not a person from their
tech division (do they have one?), it’s someone who proudly states they help shape
policy. Ours is a policy they would love to shape—to the detriment of our colleagues and
our world.

It is not ethical to continue to make all kinds of side arguments that the Heritage
Foundation belongs on this advisory committee (especially calling queer and trans
people “puritanical”) without acknowledging the consistent harm that is done to
marginalized people by them and the policies they push—especially if you’re talking
about political cover for our bottom line or stock price (is that a trade off you’re really
advocating?)

Mar 26
Google Employee 13:
Yep, when people on both sides of the aisle hate you, you'd better figure out why.
Mar 26
Google Employee 17:

Heritage foundation is opposed to some core Google principles and to the principles of
millions of American people.

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
Point of clarification: The person called "puritanical" was me, and not any variety of
queer or trans. I'm merely making arguments that I think are in support of the LGBTQ
community (which includes many of my closest friends).

But otherwise +1 to your point, as it's basically the same point I've been making. But +1
to Blake's as well. Especially given the extremely progressive history I've seen of
Blake's past posts that I've seen, I know he doesn't say these things lightly.

Mar 26
Meredith Whittaker:

One of the reasons people are afraid of Google is that Google is creating powerful tech
that could quite easily be applied for oppression and social control. This is not to say
that's how we are applying it, but if you look at Maven, etc., we're coming WAY too
close. Instead recognizing the historical gravity of our position, and rising to meet the
occasion, we've invited a vocal bigot whose hand is on the lever of US policy to shape
our views on where, and how, to "responsibly" apply this tech.

I'm stunned by how many people's mental energy is being expended finding a
technicality on which to defend this.

Mar 26
Google Employee 9:
Point taken—I was assuming I was part of the puritans (I dunno maybe I can get some
sparkly buckle shoes if they’ll have me).

But question to Blake: do we need them on an advisory panel to find out why they’re so
scared? Can’t we hire a neutral consultant firm for that without having to put this
organizations name on the same page as ours? I don’t think we need to give them that.
I don’t think they deserve that.

Mar 26
Google Employee 12:
Google Employee 9 wrote:

> What I see here is consistent goalpost moving, deflection and evasion from the main
objection that many of us have to this
organization “advising” Google:
> They think that some of our colleagues either do not or should not exist.
> This is and this alone that should bar them from a platform that Google sponsors or
“takes advisement from” in any way
> It has not been made transparent what this organization will and should advise
Google on, so conjecture of what deal making or quid pro quo comes out of such
advisement is moot, however it should be noted that on this advisory board is not
a person from their tech division (do they have one?), it’s someone who proudly states
they help shape policy. Ours is a policy they would love to shape—to the detriment of
our colleagues and our world.
> It is not ethical to continue to make all kinds of side arguments that the Heritage
Foundation belongs on this advisory committee (especially calling queer and trans
people “puritanical”) without acknowledging the consistent harm that is done to
marginalized people by them and the policies they push—especially if you’re talking
about political cover for our bottom line or stock price (is that a trade off you’re really
advocating?)

I'm replying only because you said "political cover" and I think I may have introduced
that term into this thread. First let me agree, as I said upthread, that the positions that
the Heritage Foundation takes are unethical. That said, any company as large as
Google does need "political cover for [its] bottom line or stock price," and Google, which
is one of the largest political contributors in the U.S., is not trying to evade that. Google
is intentionally deciding to play a rotten, corrupt political game, in the hopes (I believe)
that it can still help the world to change for the better. That kind of tradeoff is a reality of
life for any large company in our current society.

I completely understand and respect anybody who does not want to make that kind of
tradeoff. If you can't make that tradeoff, then you face some difficult choices. For
example, you can choose to separate your political beliefs from those of your employer
(e.g., I personally tend to avoid referring to Google as "we" or "our;" Google buys my
time, not my person). Or you can work to change the choices that Google makes,
though that will take a lot more work than writing to a mailing list. Or you can work to
change society. Or you can find a more ethical place to work (as quite a number of ex-
Googlers have done). Or no doubt there are several other possibilities.

But I do not think it will be effective to say that Google should not invite the Heritage
Foundation to comment on its actions without acknowledging that there is a real tradeoff
here. I assert further (and you may well disagree) that reasonable people can take
different positions on whether that tradeoff is worth making.

Mar 26
Google Employee 20:
Meredith Whittaker:

One of the reasons people are afraid of Google is that Google is creating powerful tech
that could quite easily be applied for oppression and social control. This is not to say
that's how we are applying it, but if you look at Maven, etc., we're coming WAY too
close. Instead recognizing the historical gravity of our position, and rising to meet the
occasion, we've invited a vocal bigot whose hand is on the lever of US policy to shape
our views on where, and how, to "responsibly" apply this tech.
I'm stunned by how many people's mental energy is being expended finding a
technicality on which to defend this.

Some folks are so invested in the idea that "all ideas matter" that they will defend
humanity's worst ideas especially when said ideas are presented with the veneer of
civility.

Mar 26
Meredith Whittaker:
Google Employee 20::
Some folks are so invested in the idea that "all ideas matter" that they will defend
humanity's worst ideas especially when said ideas are presented with the veneer of
civility.

Trueché

Arguing for "diversity" without a power analysis (as in, historically which people have
been harmed, and which have benefitted, and what are the "ideas" by which this was
justified?)

Mar 26
Blake Lemoine:
@Meredith, I certainly didn't mean to say that I agreed with her inclusion. She's not
who I would have chosen. I wasn't even trying to say that I think this is the right
approach at all. I have vocally advocated for dramatically different strategies than the
one currently being pursued by Google. I wasn't trying to endorse any of this. I was
simply saying that if we're going to lobby that she be removed from that committee then
it should be done with an accurate understanding of why she's there in the first place.
She's there to vouch for us to conservatives. And yes, convincing someone like her to
vouch for us to conservatives might entail paying a higher price than it's worth. I just
think that we should acknowledge that there is in fact benefit to her inclusion. As
Machiavellian as that benefit may be.

@Google Employee 9, the short answer is "no". To understand why conservatives are
afraid of us we need to ask conservatives. Their subjective experience of the world is
fundamentally different than the subjective experience of the world which is had by
liberals and libertarians. I'd recommend the works of Jonathan Haidt as a fairly good
starting point if you're interested in further pursuing that line of inquiry.

Mar 26
Google Employee 5
I think we should also consider the situation in reverse. Say that you became a
president of a well know progressive organization like SPLC after breaking through a
tough glass ceiling and have accepted a role on ethics council of Breitbart, to help them
decide which articles to publish. Obviously you know what an average Breitbart
employer thinks of the likes of you. And that you will be a token liberal on an altright
panel, with your opinions probably not having much impact. If you still agreed to
participate, chances are you will be constructive and respectful rather than just trolling
right? I think regardless of her role Blake’s contention of calming down fears or
straightforward consulting we should give her a fair shot. Now if she starts trolling and
abusing Googlers rather than being professional, I would fully support that her removal.

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
To be clear, I don't think a single person in this thread has defended the views held by
the Heritage Foundation. Rather, everybody has accepted that many of their views are
despicable, and has tried to search for a reason why Google would include them
despite those views. Some of those have been in defense of Google, and some of those
have merely been attempts to understand the reasoning. Which is important, because
it's hard to effective advocate against a thing if you don't even understand why it was
done. But not a single person in this thread that I can find has said the Heritage
Foundation's positions are acceptable or good.

Mar 26
Google Employee 5 wrote:
Blake Lemoine wrote:
@Matt, the short answer is "no". To understand why conservatives are afraid of us we
need to ask conservatives. Their subjective experience of the world is fundamentally dif
ferent than the subjective experience of the world which is had by liberals and
libertarians
.
I think you are seriously overestimating our popularity with the later movement :)

Mar 26
Meredith Whittaker:
Google Employee 5:
I think we should also consider the situation in reverse. Say that you became a resident
of a well know progressive organization like SPLC after breaking through a tough glass
ceiling and have accepted a role on ethics council of Breitbart, to help them decide
which articles to publish. Obviously you know what an average Breitbart employer
thinks of the likes of you. And that you will be a token liberal on an altright panel, with
your opinions probably not having much impact. If you still agreed to participate,
chances are you will be constructive and respectful rather than just trolling right? I
think regardless of her role Blake’s contention of calming down fears or straightforward
consulting we should give her a fair shot. Now if she starts trolling and abusing
Googlers rather than being professional, I would fully support that her removal.
This is not a useful exercise.

Mar 26
Meredith Whittaker:
Google Employee 7: wrote:
To be clear, I don't think a single person in this thread has defended the views held by
the Heritage Foundation. Rather, everybody has accepted that many of their views are
despicable, and has tried to search for a reason why Google would include them
despite those views. Some of those have been in defense of Google, and some of
those have merely been attempts to understand the reasoning. Which is important,
because it's hard to effective advocate against a thing if you don't even understand why
it was done.
I disagree. Intentions are part of the calculous, sure, but the impact and implications
irrespective of whatever 12 layer political chess may have led to this decisions are just
as important. (As an aside, what you're arguing amounts to our never having standing to
challenge anything the company chooses to withhold info about.)

I am advocating against including an outspoken bigot, and a person who has repeatedly
supported policies that dehumanize and marginalize. It's not a difficult position to take,
given the preponderance of evidence of her views, and Google's stated mission WRT
convening this Council.

Mar 26
Google Employee 5:
Meredith Whittaker:
This is not a useful exercise.

This is not an argument :)

Mar 26
Google Employee F:
Meredith, I am glad to see you refocusing on the moral bankruptcy of James' views and
actions, and turning the conversation back to urging us to take action against her
appointment. What should/can we do to express this view and make this happen?

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
Meredith Whittaker wrote:
I am advocating against including an outspoken bigot, and a person who has repeatedly
supported policies that dehumanize and marginalize. It's not a difficult position to take,
given the preponderance of evidence of her views, and Google's stated mission WRT
convening this Council.
I think you're misunderstanding my point, because you're violently agreeing with me.
Keep in mind that the context of my message was a response to Google Employee 20:
saying "Some folks are so invested in the idea that "all ideas matter" that they will
defend humanity's worst ideas especially when said ideas are presented with the
veneer of civility.”
I'm not saying we shouldn't advocate against including the Heritage Council's inclusion,
regardless of the reasoning, I'm saying it "will be hard to be effectively advocate against
a thing" without knowing the reason. We can, and should, advocate against this.
Nobody has yet come up with a hypothetical reason which could convince me it's a
good idea (though Blake's message at least makes it an understandable idea). But to
give Google's leadership effective arguments we need to address the reason they
thought it was a good idea.

Mar 26
Google Employee 11:
Do you think this is some kind of debate club? where we trade ideas about random
subjects and the one with the strongest debate team wins?

That's a big part of the problem on the threads on tande@ lately. They devolve into
rhetorical exercises between the same small subset of podium-monopolizers, who turn
the subject of the thread into a theater for them to parade like peacocks.

As I said above, there is no debating the humanity of other people, especially ones who
have had no power to fight policies advocated by entities like the Heritage Foundation. It
is infuriating to see people on this thread give credence to despicable theories just
because "marketplace of ideas" or "more articulate people" or whatever else.

This is NOT a game. Google has enormous power, power that it frankly seems to not
know what to use for. And asking entities like the Heritage Foundation for their opinions
on how to use that power is misguided and will not lead an ethical use of AI.

If the board is just a window dressing exercise to look like "we are listening to experts
from both sides etc", it will be ineffectual at best or lead to Heritage Foundation tinged
recommendation. If the board actually has some teeth, we're in for a ride.

In all cases, Google CONTINUES to show a total lack of leadership on these issues and
a total capitulation to the political whims of the moment.

Mar 26
Google Employee 20:
Google Employee 7:
To be clear, I don't think a single person in this thread has defended the views held by
the Heritage Foundation. Rather, everybody has accepted that many of their views are
despicable, and has tried to search for a reason why Google would include them
despite those views. Some of those have been in defense of Google, and some of
those have merely been attempts to understand the reasoning. Which is important,
because it's hard to effective advocate against a thing if you don't even understand why
it was done. But not a single person in this thread that I can find has said the Heritage
Foundation's positions are acceptable or good.

I don't think anyone has, no. Nobody wants to defend unpopular ideas because they will
be dismissed. It's better to pick a more popular idea, one that most people wouldn't
disagree with, and use it as a wedge.

Mar 26
Meredith Whittaker:
Extremely well said.

Mar 26
Google Employee U:
To your point Matthew there are two reasons they thought was a good idea I think: a)
some execs genuinely agree with what the Heritage Foundation believes (almost too
awful to contemplate) or b) as many have pointed out the leadership is pandering to
conservatives for instrumental or perceived strategic reasons, out of existential fear etc
(or at least pandering to the outspoken elite conservatives with extremist views like the
Heritage Foundation). Neither are OK IMO but maybe one strategy is to call the bluff if
it is one. It seems like a contradiction to have on your advisory board someone whose
views you find abhorrent, but are only doing so to assuage the anxieties of
conservatives (anxieties Heritage Foundation very cynically exploits and fuels).

Mar 26
Google Employee 5:
Exactly, this is not a game. Our goal is for Google to make ethical product decisions so
that our work makes a positive impact on the world. It’s not to indulge on general
snobbery on how good we are or how horrible someone else is. Neither it is to abuse
our popularity with customers as a company to seek power or realization of our personal
preferences. This is not to say that having personal preferences is bad or that some of
us should not, after work, oppose Heritage Foundation. But, as far as work is
concerned, how do we ensure that AI and other advanced technology are used to help
and not hurt people?

Mar 26
Meredith Whittaker:
First, we refuse to take advice on how to use AI technologies from those who openly
dehumanize many of our friends and colleagues.

Mar 26
Google Employee 7:
+1 to Google Employee 11, even as I may be one of the targets of this statement. I
suppose I've allowed myself to be nerdsniped into non-constructive debates a few times
on this list, and for that I apologize.
Mar 26
Google Employee 11:
we can start by not having the heritage foundation advise us on AI.

Mar 26
Google Employee 5:
Meredith Whittaker wrote:
First, we refuse to take advice on how to use AI technologies from those who openly
dehumanize many of our friends and colleagues.
So are you proposing to rule out consulting ordinary citizens in the countries bombed by
drones regarding how AI might be used for defense without hurting innocent civilians?

Mar 26
Google Employee G:
Exactly, this is not a game. Our goal is for Google to make ethical product decisions so
that our work makes a positive impact on the world. It’s not to indulge on general
snobbery on how good we are or how horrible someone else is. Neither it is to abuse
our popularity with customers as a company to seek power or realization of our
personal preferences. This is not to say that having personal preferences is bad or that
some of us should not, after work, oppose Heritage Foundation. But, as far as work is
concerned, how do we ensure that AI and other advanced technology are used to help
and not hurt people?

"general snobbery"

Are you kidding me with this? It's not snobbery to object to associating with and
legitimizing an organization dedicated to eliminating LGBTQ+ people from public life,
driving them back into the closet, denying them healthcare, and so on. It's basic
human decency, treating it like a difference of opinion is simply monstrous and I don't
think it belongs on this list, or at Google at all. Please feel free to see yourself off this list
if all you have to contribute is concern trolling about whether or not we're pandering to
rank bigotry enough. I'm muting you, and I think you should take a long hard look at how
you're behaving here. Have a nice day.

Mar 26
Google Employee 20:
When we invite people with malignant ideas, we socialize those ideas. Evil isn't
supposed to have a face. The moment it does, we doubt ourselves.

Of course, I say "we" but the folks who are *targeted* by these ideas know what's up.
But then that's why evil chooses those who can't defend themselves, who other people
will look away from. Their very existence becomes politicized. Suddenly it is not
acceptable to criticize such ideas without accusations of, well, take your pick. The
content of those ideas is quickly brushed away in favor of something more comfortable:
"why do you hate free speech?"

This is performative, ultimately, because the goal isn't to convince anyone who's made
up their mind. The goal is to frustrate, divide, and stymie. It's a waste of time in some
ways because the folks who are invited in have no intention of ever changing their
minds. You can't reason with malice because it is not reasonable. You can't reason with
a view so invested in the status quo that any notion of justice is threatening, divisive,
and (worst of all) uncivil.

Mar 26:
Google Employee 5:
Oh boy, this was certainly a violation of our code of conduct, go/respect and California
Labor Code § 1101. As a reminder, we are discussing work matters, at work. We are
lucky to have a place where we are allowed to do it, unlike Apple and other companies I
work for. But when we do, we have to treat it like a team meeting, not a UC Berkeley
classroom. And people with different life experience have full right to engage towards
more ethical products in good faith.

I have no objections to folks organizing towards social causes in forums which are not
about work matters and I know quite a few of these exist.

Personally I don’t believe in offgroup escalations so I am not taking any further action
about this comment, but I do think it’s unacceptable and unethical.

Mar 26
Google Employee 20:
Be advised: it is known that in some cases, people within Google will bring up wedge
issues on mailing lists in order to provoke a reaction. They may not themselves report
people to HR for such things, or they may. (How would we know the difference
anyway?)

It's a good example of how, once objectionable views become socialized, it becomes
against the rules to call them what they are. If you mess up, we're talking about how bad
you are, not how monstrous it is to use state power to inflict misery and harm.

So, you know, just be careful. <3

Mar 26
Google Employee 19:
Google Employee 5 wrote:
Oh boy, this was certainly a violation of our code of conduct, go/respect and California
Labor Code § 1101
...
But surely we can't go waving the code of conduct and random labor code sections
around at people in an intimidating fashion just because we disagree with them!
Mar 26
Google Employee J:
Google Employee 5 wrote:
I think irrelevant personal nitpicking should be deemphasized. I get it that most folks
here, including myself, don’t agree with her views. But the question should really be
“does she or does she not have something to say on military/law enforcement use of AI
that we might find valuable in our decision making?”

I think the problem is the role of adviser. You should certainly listen to what people who
oppose your goals and your values have to say. But taking them on as advisers is
counterproductive. They're not going to passively provide you with the information you
need. They're going to actively try to push their agenda.

Mar 27
Google Employee 22:
Just catching up on all this, but I want to offer a big +1 to Joëlle's point earlier that this
isn't a game. Google wields great societal power, and the choices we make have real,
material impacts. Anti-trans rhetoric (to pick one example of the many abhorrent things
the Heritage Foundation does) has real, material impacts on the world. Their rhetorical
violence translates to real, material violence against trans people, particularly trans
women of color. See, for example:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/health/transgender deaths2018/index.html.This isn't
about "discomfort." The stakes are a lot higher than that.

Also, can we please retire the debate about the paradox of tolerance? _Everyone_
knows there are some opinions we wouldn't welcome on an advisory council like this
one. It's just a question of where you want to draw the line. I, for one, think that
encouraging violence against trans people isn't an acceptable opinion, doesn't deserve
a Google legitimized platform, and certainly doesn't belong in any conversation about
how Google tech should be applied to the world.

Mar 27
Google Employee K:
Google Employee 5 wrote:
Oh boy, this was certainly a violation of our code of conduct, go/respect and California
Labor Code § 1101. As a reminder, we are discussing work matters, at work. We are
lucky to have a place where we are allowed to do it, unlike Apple and other companies I
work for. But when we do, we have to treat it like a team meeting, not a UC Berkeley
classroom. And people with different life experience have full right to engage towards
more ethical products in good faith.

Do you believe coworkers to be not a part of work matters? Do you believe protecting
coworkers to be not a part of work matters? Do you believe not cooperating with people
that want to see harm done to those coworkers to be not a part of work matters. Just
because it doesn't impact *you* personally doesn't mean it isn't part of work. You just
feel that way because it isn't someone going after you.

Mar 27
Google Employee L:
Proposal:
 Issue a public call to several of these organizations.
 State openly that their viewpoints are important to consider, and should be
represented on this council.
 Require this collection of organizations to nominate a representative to carry their
views, a representative who is not in flagrant violation of Alphabet's stated norms.

Let politics do the work that it must do in a civilized society.

Mar 27
Meredith Whittaker:
I would disagree that their views are important to consider, when those views include
erasing trans people, targeting immigrants, and denying climate change.

Mar 27
Google Employee L:
Meredith Whittaker wrote:
I would disagree that their views are important to consider, when those views include
erasing trans people, targeting immigrants, and denying climate change.

The collection of organizations selected by Alphabet will have to compromise on several

of those sticking points to pick their joint representative. If the collection of organizations
cannot agree on one representative, that will be their public failure amongst each other.
If the collection of organizations cannot agree on a representative who is not flagrantly
opposed to Alphabet's basic norms, that again will be their public failure: are the basic
norms so impossible that they all chose weakness?

It should be thus, that the collection of organizations wants a seat at the table, and are
willing to pick a single representative for all of them, someone without a public record of
erasing trans people, targeting immigrants, denying climate change, etc.

In no way should Alphabet own the choice of representative! Elevating just one group
above all others, gifting them this spot in the marketplace of ideas, is a frivolous waste
of political capital. Let Alphabet select a few groups to elevate above the others;
establish the norm that Alphabet's basic norms are a requirement; and let those groups
find their own compromise through this marketplace to that one valuable seat at the
table.

Mar 27
Google Employee 3:
Whereas, this is not a game in a debate society, so be it moved, that: +1 to Meredith.
Mar 28
Google Employee Z:
To cite a specific example that I was involved in advocating already, the fundamental
issue here is that an AI/ML ethics council needs to have someone on it who can say
"NO" to facial recognition of gender characteristics, because identifying people as trans
(whether by having two different implementations that differ in their classification of the
same face, or having a classification that significantly diverges from common perception
by humans) puts peoples' lives at risk.

People dying as a result of such discrepancies is a matter of When, not If.

Note that this is not strictly putting trans peoples' lives at risk there are a lot of cis
people whose bodies developed in ways where they would be misclassified just ask
1000 cis women about how often they are greeted with "Sir" and He/Him pronouns
against their wishes, the answer is a nontrivial percentage that is larger than current
estimates of the trans population. Do the same test with 1000 cis men about "Ma'am"
and She/Her greetings and you will also find a nontrivial percentage. Same experiment
applies for trying to identify gay men among the population a nontrivial percentage of
the cis hetero male population are mistakenly identified as "gay" due to feminine
features, and it actively harms their dating prospects and they resent this societal
phenomenon we need to not perpetuate existing problems with human recognition of
humans.

Don't forget that there are countries where being trans is a felony (e.g. Saudi Arabia,
Russia, Lithuania and many others) and others where trans people do not have basic
human rights as nonpersons (e.g. India), being mistakenly identified as trans leads to
real consequences we should be advising against even attempting such recognition.

Mar 28
Google Employee 23:
Okay. But would you put it in a singleparagraph bio whose purpose was to establish
your professional bonafides? Nobody else on the board mentioned their family . Why
would you do that in a work bio?
Growing up in a conservative family , there's a very very simple reason this is in her bio:
it's a statement that she believes in, "traditional family values," specifically as they relate
to the role of women in the family. This makes sense, given that she's been a member
of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council (which brings back many
really bad childhood memories).

Mar 28
Google Employee 23:
Google Employee 12: wrote:
I have no actual knowledge of the goals of the Advisory Council. I am suggesting that
one of the goals may be to provide political cover for actions that Google wants to take.
There is today substantial criticism of Google from the right in the U.S., from the
president on down. If the Council is to provide any sort of useful political cover, it must
in some way address that criticism.

The only practical way to do that is to ensure that the Council includes someone that
the right will respect. (The right will continue to criticize Google, of course; the purpose
of the political cover is to provide a meaningful counterargument: "if it's OK with X, then
why isn't it OK with you?") If you accept this argument, then I hope you see that we do
have to "live with it." We can't pretend that the right does not exist.

Of course you might not accept this argument. But I'm responding to your comment "I
don't follow this conclusion at all." You can reject the argument entirely: perhaps
Google should not seek political cover, perhaps it won't work. But if you accept the
argument, then I think the conclusion is at least plausible.

Yup. I'm sure this is the reason. And I wholeheartedly disagree with it. As a trans
person, this justification reads as Google saying, "We're going to throw our LGBTQ+,
US immigrant, and other demographics under the bus in pursuit of revenue. We're not
really harming diversity because this person won't be able to direct actual policy, so we
should be good." But messages like these work both ways: yes, it may not result in
more bigoted recommendations by the board. But in crafting a message to
conservatives that Google isn't liberal in this specific way, Google is also telling people
like me that they really don't care about us.

I genuinely don't mind Google seeking out conservative leaning people to staff part of
this ethics advisory board. But can they please not select people who have repeatedly
engaged in such horribly bigoted activities?