Cancel Culture

[JPRouve]

A right thing to do IMO.

No idea if he is the only one in that letter who thinks so, the vast majority of people there I have no idea whom they are.

I support the right of free speech in all harmful discussions* (denial of Holocaust) or harmless discussions (flat Earth theory). No reason for the government (or angry mobs on Twitter) to decide what can be said and what cannot be said.

* Of course, not in, I have a bomb in the airplane type of scenario.

But the mob and every organization are free to decide who they want to be associated with. That's where this cancel culture outrage falls flat. The thing that some of you are missing is that you aren't fighting for free speech, you are fighting for imposing people and ideas on others which has nothing to do with free speech.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I support the right of free speech in all harmful discussions* (denial of Holocaust) or harmless discussions (flat Earth theory). No reason for the government (or angry mobs on Twitter) to decide what can be said and what cannot be said.

This seems contradictory. If someone has the right to deny the holocaust or state their belief that the earth is flat (which they do), then others have the right to challenge those assertions.

 

[Revan]

This seems contradictory. If someone has the right to deny the holocaust or state their belief that the earth is flat (which they do), then others have the right to challenge those assertions.

The others have definitely the right to challenge those discussions. Or even better, consider those people as idiots.

 

[JPRouve]

The others have definitely the right to challenge those discussions. Or even better, consider those people as idiots.

But that's mainly the problem that they have, they don't want to be challenged or be called idiots. They consider that it's a sort of persecution or silencing, they don't care about other people freedoms.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

But the mob and every organization are free to decide who they want to associated with. That's where this cancel culture outrage falls flat. The thing that some of you are missing is that you aren't fighting for free speech, you are fighting imposing people and ideas on others which has nothing to do with free speech.

I agree with this. Cancel culture doesn’t prevent free speech. It just means there are consequences to what you say.

De-platforming comes closer to impinging on free speech but it’s really just saying we don’t want to hear you talk in this specific scenario. And nobody should have the right to invite themselves to speak at an event where they’re not wanted.

My personal opinion is that de-platforming hands the upper hand to those who aren’t allowed to speak. They can accuse their denigrators of being over sensitive snowflakes, afraid of the power of ideas. Which is not a good look. This is probably a separate issue to cancel culture though.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The others have definitely the right to challenge those discussions. Or even better, consider those people as idiots.

But that's mainly the problem that they have, they don't want to be challenged or be called idiots. They consider that it's a sort of persecution or silencing, they don't care about other people freedoms.

What JP said. And I agree they are idiots and should be told as much. If the times we live in have additional consequences, so be it.

 

[BobbyManc]

A right thing to do IMO.

No idea if he is the only one in that letter who thinks so, the vast majority of people there I have no idea whom they are.

I support the right of free speech in all harmful discussions* (denial of Holocaust) or harmless discussions (flat Earth theory). No reason for the government (or angry mobs on Twitter) to decide what can be said and what cannot be said.

* Of course, not in, I have a bomb in the airplane type of scenario.

But you’ve given an example yourself where you would accept a limit on free speech. I’m sure I could come up with other examples almost everyone would agree with e.g. inciting violence against someone. So you do agree there should be some limitations on free speech, you just have different views on where to draw the line. It reminds me of the Parler app which Twitter’s grifters fled to and were duly shocked to discover there were also rules about what they could and could not post on there.

 

[JPRouve]

I agree with this. Cancel culture doesn’t prevent free speech. It just means there are consequences to what you say.

De-platforming comes closer to impinging on free speech but it’s really just saying we don’t want to hear you talk in this specific scenario. And nobody should have the right to invite themselves to speak at an event where they’re not wanted.

My personal opinion is that de-platforming hands the upper hand to those who aren’t allowed to speak. They can accuse their denigrators of being over sensitive snowflakes, afraid of the power of ideas. Which is not a good look. This is probably a separate issue to cancel culture though.

But again if you look deeper there is an issue with the very idea that they are complaining. They could easily create their own platform and say whatever they want, thousands of people do that and have been succesful, nowadays you can create your own website, you can have a vlog, a podcast and write all the articles that you want. The reason these people complain isn't because their free speech is ever disrespected, it's because they want to use someone else's resources and audience, they want the ability to exploit someone else's work because the reality is that their own ideas, their personalities are often not interesting and not clever, their only hope is to impose themselves on people and trap a few of them.

The fact that smart people are getting bamboozled by these fraudsters is surprising, apparently nowadays you just need to use magic words like free-speech and people stop thinking. The irony is that it is a SJW behavior.

 

[BobbyManc]

But again if you look deeper there is an issue with the very idea that they are complaining. They could easily create their own platform and say whatever they want, thousands of people do that and have been succesful, nowadays you can create your own website, you can have a vlog, a podcast and write all the articles that you want. The reason these people complain isn't because their free speech is ever disrespected, it's because they want to use someone else's resources and audience, they want the ability to exploit someone else's work because the reality is that their own ideas, their personalities are often not interesting and not clever, their only hope is to impose themselves on people and trap a few of them.

The fact that smart people are getting bamboozled by these fraudsters is surprising, apparently nowadays you just need to use magic words like free-speech and people stop thinking. The irony is that it is a SJW behavior.

Well put. They all love free markets and the marketplace of ideas until it rejects them.

 

[Revan]

But again if you look deeper there is an issue with the very idea that they are complaining. They could easily create their own platform and say whatever they want, thousands of people do that and have been succesful, nowadays you can create your own website, you can have a vlog, a podcast and write all the articles that you want. The reason these people complain isn't because their free speech is ever disrespected, it's because they want to use someone else's resources and audience, they want the ability to exploit someone else's work because the reality is that their own ideas, their personalities are often not interesting and not clever, their only hope is to impose themselves on people and trap a few of them.

The fact that smart people are getting bamboozled by these fraudsters is surprising, apparently nowadays you just need to use magic words like free-speech and people stop thinking. The irony is that it is a SJW behavior.

Who are they? You are almost sounding like it is 8chan people who are not allowed to speak on leftist venues. It is more closer to people who actually agree on 95% of issues with some other people, suddenly getting hounded for disagreeing (or not entirely agreeing) with certain people. It is becoming a frigging cult.

 

[JPRouve]

Who are they? You are almost sounding like it is 8chan people who are not allowed to speak on leftist venues. It is more closer to people who actually agree on 95% of issues with some other people, suddenly getting hounded for disagreeing (or not entirely agreeing) with certain people. It is becoming a frigging cult.

The people complaining about being cancelled or decrying the cancel culture. You used holocaust deniers or flat earthers, so for example these two groups have no rights to a platform, no one is forced to share their resources with them and nothing prevent them from speaking freely while using their own platform that they financed themselves. The reality is that there has always been a selection, editors, broadcasters or radios have never allowed everyone on their platforms they pick them based on these people's monetary values, when you lose value or when you never had value, you aren't platformed or "cancelled".

It's not a leftist or rightist thing, it's a business thing.

 

[nickm]

Yeah, exactly. That’s basically what I said. Left leaning people don’t have problematic opinions

Yeah they do. Read Nick Cohen. They just don't get called out by other left leaning people for it.

 

[nickm]

Agree. Don't get me wrong I am not in support of people being able to speak freely without consequences.

People should be accountable for their opinions, but it's not a bully's charter and there's too often an urge to silence and discredit instead of debate. There is also a responsibility on people to be prepared to listen to and tolerate views they might disagree with, even strongly, otherwise how on earth can anyone develop. That's what tolerance is about. (I don't think much of Jordan Peterson for example but what on earth was Cambridge University thinking when they uninvited him?)

 

[berbatrick]

 

[JPRouve]

People should be accountable for their opinions, but it's not a bully's charter and there's too often an urge to silence and discredit instead of debate. There is also a responsibility on people to be prepared to listen to and tolerate views they might disagree with, even strongly, otherwise how on earth can anyone develop. That's what tolerance is about. (I don't think much of Jordan Peterson for example but what on earth was Cambridge University thinking when they uninvited him?)

That's where I disagree the most because it gives the idea that people like Jordan Peterson are due a platform when in reality they have been selected instead of someone else and there is a point where they may not be that interesting and someone else will be invited in their stead. The way you put, it seems that when you are in, nothing can see you lose something that doesn't even belong to you.

 

[Revan]

The people complaining about being cancelled or decrying the cancel culture. You used holocaust deniers or flat earthers, so for example these two groups have no rights to a platform, no one is forced to share their resources with them and nothing prevent them from speaking freely while using their own platform that they financed themselves. The reality is that there has always been a selection, editors, broadcasters or radios have never allowed everyone on their platforms they pick them based on these people's monetary values, when you lose value or when you never had value, you aren't platformed or "cancelled".

It's not a leftist or rightist thing, it's a business thing.

Honestly, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking for particular cases where people agree in vast majority of cases, but something that is hardly controversial at all is putting people on trouble (for example, someone very high on Facebook said that 'most of the bias on machine learning systems come from the bias on data' and had to leave the Twitter because of the bullying that was unleashed on him, with actually Facebook apologizing for that statement. Which actually is totally correct). He was accused for borderline white supremacy for crying out load.

Or with the change of a conference name fiasco, when a Harvard professor gave 'a scientific' opinion why the word NIPS is not offensive, to only be attacked by a Caltech professor (with her opening statement being 'you are blind, I am disappointed, I hope you learn for the problem and get enlightened' to only then spend the next 2 years complaining about how that professor is sexist and accusing everyone who didn't distance himself from that professor.

In my field, it seems that the only way of acting that don't put you in trouble is to not ever get into debate with women/black people. It can be for the smallest things (for example woman A says something, man B adds something to clarify what she said to only be accused for sexism from woman C cause A could have explained her thoughts itself, why do you think you can complete her opinions, just that you're a man). If you get into a debate (even a purely scientific one), there is a non-trivial chance that you are screwed already.

This type of insane behavior and bullying is what I am talking about. And I am seeing it increasing everyday.

Again it is far better in Europe. You actually can have opinions. Not in US(SR) though.

 

[JPRouve]

Honestly, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking for particular cases where people agree in vast majority of cases, but something that is hardly controversial at all is putting people on trouble (for example, someone very high on Facebook said that 'most of the bias on machine learning systems come from the bias on data' and had to leave the Twitter because of the bullying that was unleashed on him, with actually Facebook apologizing for that statement. Which actually is totally correct). He was accused for borderline white supremacy for crying out load.

Or with the change of a conference name fiasco, when a Harvard professor gave 'a scientific' opinion why the word NIPS is not offensive, to only be attacked by a Caltech professor (with her opening statement being 'you are blind, I am disappointed, I hope you learn for the problem and get enlightened' to only then spend the next 2 years complaining about how that professor is sexist and accusing everyone who didn't distance himself from that professor.

In my field, it seems that the only way of acting that don't put you in trouble is to not ever get into debate with women/black people. It can be for the smallest things (for example woman A says something, man B adds something to clarify what she said to only be accused for sexism from woman C cause A could have explained her thoughts itself, why do you think you can complete her opinions, just that you're a man). If you get into a debate (even a purely scientific one), there is a non-trivial chance that you are screwed already.

This type of insane behavior and bullying is what I am talking about. And I am seeing it increasing everyday.

Again it is far better in Europe. You actually can have opinions. Not in US(SR) though.

But that's the thing, you are the one mixing things. Cancel culture is called cancel for a reason, it's about people being cancelled not people being criticized or challenged. You are basically talking about what I said earlier about Twitter and Facebook, these are shallow medias, you do not use them to express complicated ideas because you will never be able to express them fully. So the first example that you used is the demonstration of the stupidity of an intelligent man who seemingly don't understand that you need to pick the appropriate media when you express your opinions, here he used an audience that will for a large part not even understand what he is talking about.

I have a question though, are women and black people the only ones that get into arguments in your field and does that apply to all of them?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Her exact quote:



Nah, she is not really calling racism and sexism here. Not at all, nothing to see!



Hey, Rosalind Franklin got discriminated 70 years ago, so it is only fair why my unpublished paper is not getting mentioned in a lecture that talks about GANs and that cited 35 papers. Of course, it did not cite another hundred published (only top venue) papers, and another few thousands (probably more than 10k+) unpublished (or published on second-tier venue) papers. You know, like mine, which is not yet published.



No, I am not. I am saying that the paper had no business on being on that lecture (only this year there have been 100+ GAN papers which have been accepted on top venues, so only this year there have been 100+ better papers than hers). Crying racism and sexism in this card is clearly using racism and sexist cards.



I admit that she might have been simply frustrated, and she is overrating her papers on delusional levels. It happens, true. A paper that I thought would be an oral of mine got rejected, and on resubmission got barely accepted. I thought it was awesome as did my supervisor. I accepted the criticism though, and improved the paper for resubmission instead of saying 'is this just because I have a Muslim name' in twitter. For sure it would have given me more likes though, maybe a strategy for next time around (just kidding).



I am using the fact that her paper had less than 0.1% chance of being on that lecture from a frequentist point of view.



I am angry that some powerful members of the community are actively encouraging this type of behavior. I don't care too much about the OP, she might just be frustrated or might actually deliberately trying to take advantage of the current anti-racism wave in order to get undeserved fame for herself. In the first case, she would be misguided, in the second she is trying to advance her career by politics (and potentially ruining that of others). On the other hand, I am angry that powerful people are encouraging this and are politicizing science. In many ways, it has been going for years.

You still misrepresented the OP quite severely
No one is being called a racist, there are no calls to "cancel" anyone and no one is having their career threatened as you melodramatically insisted earlier.

There is a issue with women, people of color and particularly women of color being cited I. Academia. That isn't limited to the past but still happens. Her initial post, whether you agree or not, brings up issues of implict or unconscious bias more than makes any explicit accusations. And the only call to action is the hashtag of citing more black women, not your exaggerated interpretation of wanted anyone "canceled".

Also, from working around Silicon Valley for two years and with doctors, PhD and academics for even more, I find that all of them, including yourself in this thread, seem to overvalue your own work and feel it's more important than others recognize.

A Google C level liking a post is not "politicizing science" and it's not even remotely at the level of "only research done for political correctness". You've simply gone way too far in the "omgz PC gone mad" direction to take you seriously. Especially when your other links that you acted so incredulous about were nothing really as others have shown.

 

[sammsky1]

There's also the fact that rabid culture warriors conflate academics who are influenced by Marxism as a method in their academic careers with being Marxists who want to eat the rich of whatever.

I'm seeing this allegation being thrown out alot these days, often by far right commentators against their detractors.

What is a cultural marxist in 2020 and what is their belief system? Does it differ from Marx himself?

 

[Revan]

But that's the thing, you are the one mixing things. Cancel culture is called cancel for a reason, it's about people being cancelled not people being criticized or challenged. You are basically talking about what I said earlier about Twitter and Facebook, these are shallow medias, you do not use them to express complicated ideas because you will never be able to express them fully. So the first example that you used is the demonstration of the stupidity of an intelligent man who seemingly don't understand that you need to pick the appropriate media when you express your opinions, here he used an audience that will for a large part not even understand what he is talking about.

I have a question though, are women and black people the only ones that get into arguments in your field and does that apply to all of them?

Unfortunately black people are close to non-existent in my field. Which is why Black on AI was overwhelmingly supported by everyone, cause it was the issue that needs addressing and fixing. Unfortunately it transformed into a cult for its leader.

I am not sure what you mean arguments? It is science so people are argumentative all the time. For most part is civil (though there are toxic behaviors also on white man vs white man debates).

 

[JPRouve]

Unfortunately black people are close to non-existent in my field. Which is why Black on AI was overwhelmingly supported by everyone, cause it was the issue that needs addressing and fixing. Unfortunately it transformed into a cult for its leader.

I am not sure what you mean arguments? It is science so people are argumentative all the time. For most part is civil (though there are toxic behaviors also on white man vs white man debates).

So you stereotyped a group of people based on an anecdotal example and targetted specific groups even though it applies to everyone?

 

[Revan]

You still misrepresented the OP quite severely
No one is being called a racist, there are no calls to "cancel" anyone and no one is having their career threatened as you melodramatically insisted earlier.

There is a issue with women, people of color and particularly women of color being cited I. Academia. That isn't limited to the past but still happens. Her initial post, whether you agree or not, brings up issues of implict or unconscious bias more than makes any explicit accusations. And the only call to action is the hashtag of citing more black women, not your exaggerated interpretation of wanted anyone "canceled".

Also, from working around Silicon Valley for two years and with doctors, PhD and academics for even more, I find that all of them, including yourself in this thread, seem to overvalue your own work and feel it's more important than others recognize.

A Google C level liking a post is not "politicizing science" and it's not even remotely at the level of "only research done for political correctness". You've simply gone way too far in the "omgz PC gone mad" direction to take you seriously. Especially when your other links that you acted so incredulous about were nothing really as others have shown.

Jesus, I called myself a literal nobody, and called my greatest achievements okay/good papers. How on feck this is overvaluing myself?

I also said that the OP in question was probably delusional considering that her paper (still not accepted 9 months after being on arxiv). That is overvaluing your work, when you think that your okay unpublished paper should make a lecture on which only 35 (out of thousands of papers on that topic) got cited.

He was not a Google C but head of Google AI. If he was Google C, fine, politicize as much as you want. He is a researcher though, and should not politicize things. By the way, DeepMind is part of Google, so when someone (totally unfairly) is accusing you of racism (be it implicit as you're implying or explicit) and it gets liked from the highest researcher in your company (who is also Senior VP), someone else very high on that organisation makes an entire post on Facebook about that issue, it might be a pretty bad feeling for the two guys who made that lecture. After all, they called her to apologize. I am still waiting for my call, after all my paper in that topic is accepted on a top venue (unlike hers). Being more serious, how this is anything except taking advantage of BLM to bully people into total submission, without having any shrewd of proof or any scientific argument?

 

[sammsky1]

Isn't Cancel Culture basically holding all people fully accountable for their acts and statements? In UK, it is illegal to make racist, trans/homophobic, or gender biased acts or speech. Almost every organisation or company mandates this in their working policies. And so when somebody is found guilty of such acts or speech, one outcome is that they lose their employment.

The people against cancel culture are those who hold illegal views, and mistakenly think 'freedom of speech' protects them. Well they are free to act or speak as they wish, but certain acts or speech will have negative outcomes.

The movement is encouraged because it forces all people into behaving within a legal construct.

Isn't that basically it?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Jesus, I called myself a literal nobody, and called my greatest achievements okay/good papers. How on feck this is overvaluing myself?

I also said that the OP in question was probably delusional considering that her paper (still not accepted 9 months after being on arxiv). That is overvaluing your work, when you think that your okay unpublished paper should make a lecture on which only 35 (out of thousands of papers on that topic) got cited.

He was not a Google C but head of Google AI. If he was Google C, fine, politicize as much as you want. He is a researcher though, and should not politicize things. By the way, DeepMind is part of Google, so when someone (totally unfairly) is accusing you of racism (be it implicit as you're implying or explicit) and it gets liked from the highest researcher in your company (who is also Senior VP), someone else very high on that organisation makes an entire post on Facebook about that issue, it might be a pretty bad feeling for the two guys who made that lecture. After all, they called her to apologize. I am still waiting for my call, after all my paper in that topic is accepted on a top venue (unlike hers). Being more serious, how this is anything except taking advantage of BLM to bully people into total submission, without having any shrewd of proof or any scientific argument?

First, implicit bias is NOT at all the same as explicit racism. You need to understand that difference to know why you conflating and equating the two carries so many problems.

Second, if all you did was make the point of published vs unpublished that would be perfectly fair.
But you've gone quite bit beyond that and used the language used by people like Rush Limbaugh - claiming that people are being canceled or careers ruined when that is not the case (cite more black women is not at all even implying 'never hire person z'). And frankly, proclaiming that an accusation on social media of racism(which isn't even what happened in this case) is just as bad as racism is really ignorant of history and sociological reality (again look up the work of Devah Pager).

 

[Icemav]

People should be accountable for their opinions, but it's not a bully's charter and there's too often an urge to silence and discredit instead of debate. There is also a responsibility on people to be prepared to listen to and tolerate views they might disagree with, even strongly, otherwise how on earth can anyone develop. That's what tolerance is about. (I don't think much of Jordan Peterson for example but what on earth was Cambridge University thinking when they uninvited him?)

I used to disagree with what they did. Then I took the position that I didn't care. And now I actually support their right to do so. Freedom of speech and other noble concepts have become the favorite toys of racists, neo-facists, popularists, essentially all manner of people who we should be afraid of. In some ways I have empathy for many of the uniformed masses out there, knowingly targeted and fed information to serve the agenda of those in power or craving power. Hell we all to varying extents have been indoctrinated since the day we were born. I am not lumping Peterson in with these dangerous groups however those in positions of influence and prestige are free to determine what a person represents, even if they themselves are unknowing, and choose not give them a platform then that is their decision. And quite frankly seeing Peterson crying on stage with Orban because of the plight of young men due to PC culture.... In parts of the Western world we are literally inches from toppling into far right neo fascism. Peterson is a self-proclaimed expert on totalitarianism and Fascism and yet and yet.


In my opinion he now doesn't deserve certain platforms. Too busy vomiting his personal neuroses upon those looking for guidance, well beyond his true field of academic expertise. Like his idol Jung just feed him a dose of ancient values, mythology, symbols and he will drop all semblance of rationale and ignore the malevolence behind your cause. A useful idiot if your will.

 

[BobbyManc]

 

[Revan]

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I'm seeing this allegation being thrown out alot these days, often by far right commentators against their detractors.

What is a cultural marxist in 2020 and what is their belief system? Does it differ from Marx himself?

Cultural Marxists don't exist, so they don't have a belief system. It somewhat refers to the Frankfurt school, typically Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse, but they have no connection at all to the people who are called Cultural Marxists today. The people using the term have no idea what those guys believed or argued. In practice it's a repackaging of Cultural Bolshevism, but you can't use that term anymore so now it's Cultural Marxism.

On Reddit there's a subreddit called AskHistorians, and two historians there have some great comments that I highly recommend both for what the Frankfurt School actually was and how the term 'Cultural Marxism' have evolved and been used as an attack against allegedly subversive people.

 

[V.O.]

The people against cancel culture are those who hold illegal views, and mistakenly think 'freedom of speech' protects them.

Fortunately, "militant identity politics is a load of bollocks" hasn't actually been declared thoughtcrime yet, so I think I'm safe for now.

 

[BobbyManc]

Can people cite books not by Orwell for a change please? He’s already been posthumously cancelled for being a little snitch.

 

[V.O.]

Can people cite books not by Orwell for a change please? He’s already been posthumously cancelled for being a little snitch.

Yeah, well you got cancelled in the Rowling thread for assuming Cho Chang's ethnicity, so it evens out.

 

[BobbyManc]

Yeah, well you got cancelled in the Rowling thread for assuming Cho Chang's ethnicity, so it evens out.

No I think I walked that one back quite effectively to be honest.

 

[entropy]

Very normal behavior

 

[entropy]

This is a more clear cut case of racism in academia and the field of economics. It's almost as if your success in the field hinges on the whims and fancies of rabid racists.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[V.O.]

I think you're actually allowed to dislike both.

 

[berbatrick]

I think you're actually allowed to dislike both.

cool.

 

[jojojo]

Honestly, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking for particular cases where people agree in vast majority of cases, but something that is hardly controversial at all is putting people on trouble (for example, someone very high on Facebook said that 'most of the bias on machine learning systems come from the bias on data' and had to leave the Twitter because of the bullying that was unleashed on him, with actually Facebook apologizing for that statement. Which actually is totally correct). He was accused for borderline white supremacy for crying out load.

Or with the change of a conference name fiasco, when a Harvard professor gave 'a scientific' opinion why the word NIPS is not offensive, to only be attacked by a Caltech professor (with her opening statement being 'you are blind, I am disappointed, I hope you learn for the problem and get enlightened' to only then spend the next 2 years complaining about how that professor is sexist and accusing everyone who didn't distance himself from that professor.

In my field, it seems that the only way of acting that don't put you in trouble is to not ever get into debate with women/black people. It can be for the smallest things (for example woman A says something, man B adds something to clarify what she said to only be accused for sexism from woman C cause A could have explained her thoughts itself, why do you think you can complete her opinions, just that you're a man). If you get into a debate (even a purely scientific one), there is a non-trivial chance that you are screwed already.

This type of insane behavior and bullying is what I am talking about. And I am seeing it increasing everyday.

Again it is far better in Europe. You actually can have opinions. Not in US(SR) though.

I don't know if you realise that you just sound like someone sulking because he thinks someone else's opinions are being listened to, and that maybe it'll even give their career a boost if someone agrees.

It seems that your particular preoccupation is that AI is coming under more scrutiny as its early manifestations start doing more work. Part of the scrutiny is without doubt falling on the idea that "AI is colour blind and genderless" in its decision-making, whereas the reality is that it's currently as unaware of institutional and systemic bias as you appear to be.

I don't know which "very high in Facebook" individual you say posted "most of the bias on machine learning systems come from the bias on data" - there have been a few examples over the years. Of course he was right, he was "telling the truth" but if that was where he left it, as an excuse for the resulting bias in the outcomes of searches, targeting of ads or even employment practices, then he deserves to be criticised. Especially if he's very high in Facebook - there's no real excuse for someone in that position not to address the key point - that AI itself has to be trained differently, if it's not simply going to reinforce the (racist/sexist) status quo. Diversity, at the top of organisations like Facebook and in the technical discipline of AI is actually crucial to cracking that kind of problem. Data analysis needs to understand biases built into the data.

If the Facebook high up is now cancelled as unemployable, then that's a shame - because presumably he does have some talents, he just maybe doesn't have the talent/experience/empathy to be commenting on the subject. Or do you just mean he got criticised and his employer had to make some kind of apology saying that they know better, and that they understand that they have a responsibility to improve.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Interesting considering he wrote a book all about public shaming.

 

[freeurmind]

Is that real?