Slashdot Mirror


Google Conducted Hollywood 'Interventions' To Change Look of Computer Scientists (usatoday.com)

theodp writes: Most TV computer scientists are still white men," USA Today reports. "Google wants to change that. Google is calling on Hollywood to give equal screen time to women and minorities after a new study the internet giant funded found that most computer scientists on television shows and in the movies are played by white men. The problem with the hackneyed stereotype of the socially inept, hoodie-clad white male coder? It does not inspire underrepresented groups to pursue careers in computer science, says Daraiha Greene, Google CS in Media program manager, multicultural strategy." According to a Google-funded study conducted by Prof. Stacy L. Smith and the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, Google's Computer Science in Media team conducted "CS interventions" with "like-minded people" to create "Google influenced storytelling." The executive summary for a USC study entitled Cracking the Code: The Prevalence and Nature of Computer Science Depictions in Media notes that "Google influenced" TV programs include HBO's Silicon Valley and AMC's Halt and Catch Fire. The USC researchers also note that "non-tech focused programs may offer prime opportunities to showcase CS in unique and counter-stereotypical ways. As the Google Team moves forward in its work with series such as Empire, Girl Meets World, Gortimer Gibbons Life on Normal Street, or The Amazing Adventures of Gumball, it appears the Team is seizing these opportunities to integrate CS into storytelling without a primary tech focus." The study adds, "In the case of certain series, we provided on-going advisement. The Fosters, Miles from Tomorrowland, Halt and Catch Fire, Ready, Jet, Go, The Powerpuff Girls and Odd Squad are examples of this. In addition to our continuing interactions, we engaged in extensive PR and marketing support including social media outreach, events and press."

Google's TV interventions have even spilled over into public education -- one of Google-sponsored Code.org's signature Hour of Code tutorials last December was Gumball's Coding Adventure, inspired by the Google-advised Cartoon Network series, The Amazing Adventures of Gumball. "We need more students around the world pursuing an education in CS, particularly girls and minorities, who have historically been underrepresented in the field," explains a Google CS First presentation for educators on the search giant's Hour of Code partnership with Cartoon Network. "Based on our research, one of the reasons girls and underrepresented minorities are not pursuing computer science is because of the negative perception of computer scientists and the relevance of the field beyond coding." According to a 2015 USC report, President Obama was kept abreast of efforts to challenge media's stereotypical portrayals of women; White House Visitor Records show that USC's Smith, the Google-funded study's lead author, and Google CS Education in Media Program Manager Julie Ann Crommett (now at Disney) were among those present when the White House Council on Women and Girls met earlier that year with representatives of the nation's leading toy makers, media giants, retailers, educators, scientists, the U.S. Dept. of Education, and philanthropists.

74 of 644 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " The problem with the hackneyed stereotype of the socially inept, hoodie-clad white male coder? It does not inspire underrepresented groups to pursue careers in computer science.."
    So it's not INACCURATE, just uninspiring.

    Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re: Well... by ranton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact it is inaccurate was probably considered to obvious to mention explicitly. While those types of developers do exist, they are not the norm. But they are the norm in Hollywood, which is what Google has been trying to fix.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    2. Re:Well... by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?

      Phonies, all of them. They want to feel like they're changing the world, but without leaving the comfortable 6-digit salary and fancy coffee shops ecosystem. You don't see those people signing up to go fight ISIS or even flying to Texas to help people in need. They tweet and facebook that's the extent of their courage and commitment to social justice.

      Fuck those imbeciles. Fuck Google. They're the canary letting us know that society is seriously sick.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:Well... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Because *everything* needs to be about achieving purported social justice agendas?

      Have you ever watched a television program? Every episode of every cartoon or sitcom comes with a message. Those messages are often intended to advance cultural development, although they usually are fairly trite and boil down to the golden rule.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are witnessing the decadent end of the west.

      The MOST priveleged people in the richest country on earth claiming to be victims.

      Social Justice and their form of post modernism is poison for the west. In future historians will say "they just gave up"

    5. Re: Well... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The MOST priveleged people in the richest country on earth claiming to be victims.

      Well when you have everything, you need something to feel special. Of course their bullshit hurts everyone else like that 40 year old guy who lives with his parents, never mind he broke his back ~20 years ago, can't hold down a job and is still fighting workmans comp. Those special people need monies for a sex-change instead! Oh and safe spaces because someone telling them to shut the fuck up hurts their feelings.

      Social Justice and their form of post modernism is poison for the west. In future historians will say "they just gave up"

      It is, but people aren't going to go down without a fight over it either. And the socjus mobs aren't going to go down without a fight too, and you can see just how infected some parts of society are. You can see it with the little antifa shit mobs that believe "society is ripe for a commie revolution' while they label anyone who's to the right of marx and lennin as nazi's. At the same time that the media is cheering them on, but notice how that's strangely changed? How EU and NA media changed their tune all of a sudden and they really were the bad guys.

      Shit times, no matter which way you cut it. But I'd rather see this garbage purged sooner then later--especially since it's gone on longer then I figured it would. People were getting pissed off ~18 years ago over it, guess it took until it started reaching mainstream and it impacting day-to-day life for people to have enough.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re: Well... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      I was going to speak in support of the GP post, but then there are assholes like you.

      You do realize you hurt your own movement, right?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I saw a video a few weeks back that made a lot of sense: women are more risk averse than men.

      So the solution is for Google to stop going after the best of the best. Cut everyone's salary by 10, and hire 10 times more people with no expectations that any of them will be more than middling. Rather than keep all the jobs in high risk high reward silicon valley, set up low cost work sites in every major city, McDonald's style.

      So, what have we accomplished here?

      1. You don't need to risk moving to California.

      2. You don't need to risk getting a degree you might not like.

      3. You don't need to risk applying for a top job where you have to take all sorts of crazy tests to prove you're the best of the best of the best.

      You have a career at Google as a normal, boring, low risk low reward career. You can apply for it out of high school and have a good chance of getting one of the many Google jobs in every city.

      How far is Google willing to get more women in tech? Are they willing to do this?

    8. Re: Well... by doctorvo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While those types of developers do exist, they are not the norm. But they are the norm in Hollywood, which is what Google has been trying to fix.

      And by "fixing" you mean replacing an inaccurate stereotype with social-justice propaganda that is even more removed from reality?

    9. Re:Well... by doctorvo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Phonies, all of them. They want to feel like they're changing the world, but without leaving the comfortable 6-digit salary and fancy coffee shops ecosystem.

      These phonies are nothing new either. Read Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic.

    10. Re: Well... by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful
    11. Re: Well... by knightghost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seems like it. Google used to at least try to follow "Do no evil" but seems to have completely thrown that away in the last year.

    12. Re: Well... by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, you know, something more accurate?

      Add in a bunch of different Asian ethnicities, a smattering of other races, a few women who are actually competent and opinionated enough to hold their own, rather than just being eye-candy. And the lot of them spread across the social-competency spectrum from the smart-dressing player to the morbidly obese cheeto-powered coder., instead of predominantly representing the least-attractive stereotypes.

      Seriously - why would you favor the current grossly inaccurate and frankly insulting representation of computer geekdom unless you aspire to be a member of the unhealthy albino sausage-party that is Hollywood's representation?

      And as a corollary, why would any teenager who *doesn't* want to be part of that distasteful stereotype even consider that as a career track unless they're already fascinated by computers to begin with? These are just kids we're talking about, mostly extremely image-conscious, and expected to choose a career path based on media portrayal and far too little solid information.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re: Well... by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Historians will say mission accomplished.

    14. Re: Well... by war4peace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, you know, something more accurate?

      Add in a bunch of different Asian ethnicities, a smattering of other races, a few women who are actually competent and opinionated enough to hold their own, rather than just being eye-candy. And the lot of them spread across the social-competency spectrum from the smart-dressing player to the morbidly obese cheeto-powered coder., instead of predominantly representing the least-attractive stereotypes.

      ...and end up with movies nobody would watch.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    15. Re: Well... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seems to me the fix is already in. I've seen so many girl or young black guy hackers in TV series that it's almost becoming a cliché.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    16. Re: Well... by doctorvo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously - why would you favor the current grossly inaccurate and frankly insulting representation of computer geekdom unless you aspire to be a member of the unhealthy albino sausage-party that is Hollywood's representation? [...] These are just kids we're talking about, mostly extremely image-conscious, and expected to choose a career path based on media portrayal and far too little solid information.

      Yes, as a scrawny gay teenage geek, I aspired to be a member of the "unhealthy albino sausage-party", because those were the people who wouldn't beat me up and actually tolerate them. The teenagers with "no solid information" about computers were the ones doing the beating because in their "extremely image conscious" world, there was no room for scrawny gay geeks like me. Unfortunately, self-righteous bigots like you will destroy this niche for people like me just like you have destroyed the gay and minority neighborhoods people like me used to live in.

    17. Re: Well... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, I'd be pretty happy if Hollywood ever depicted computer science, programming, or hacking in a remotely realistic manner. I honestly don't care all that much what gender or skin color the programmer is. I just want to see less of this, please.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    18. Re: Well... by doctorvo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there any profession that Hollywood portrays even remotely accurately?

    19. Re: Well... by Kohath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Vampire hunter, starship captain, post-apocalyptic tribal warrior, superhero sidekick, etc., etc. How many examples do you need?

    20. Re: Well... by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Do you really fail to understand the difference between "cliche" and "entertainment"?
      I care about character development, storyline and the universe inside which the movie is built, rather than how actors look like or the percentage of *this* or *that* skin color in the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed "12 Angry Men" (the 1957 version) without asking myself for a second "why is the whole jury white?" - because frankly it did not matter. I've also watched (and enjoyed) "all-black" movies without as much as a shadow of a white person in them... guess why... because it did not matter. On the same note I thoroughly disliked series like Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer because scantily clad ladies with full makeup and the whole nine yards don't match at all with the series setting.

      I'd be more worried about movie "hackers" saying "I'm in" after 10 seconds of mashing buttons not inspiring ANYONE to pursue an IT career, rather than their gender or skin color having the same effect. But hey, maybe it's just me.

      Oh and I have no "agenda" - I treat people based on their character, not appearance. I'm uglier than most anyway, and I'm often being reminded of that - which, if anything, made me more willing to balance it with my mind, rather than "demand to be equal" (Which I'm not. I'm ugly and that is forever, even if I would force people around me to lie about it.)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    21. Re:Well... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If you believe that you're just another oblivious moron. The purpose of every sitcom - every TV show, every movie, every "free" search engine lookup or social media account - is to MAKE MONEY.

      I know you feel amazingly triumphant here, because you think you're teaching me something, but no. You're just failing spectacularly. Money is spent making television for one purpose, to make money. But the creative people who are creating the content have other, additional goals.

      If they could make money selling their grandmother's blood, they'd do it, and take a deposit on the bottle. If soylent green was profitable, they'd be pushing it and how wonderful it is to end your life early.

      Blah blah blah yackety yackety yack. You're so fucking amazing, woo hoo. I know all of that shit, and have known it since I was a teenager. That's beside the point. It doesn't matter why they put a message into the content. Is it because people simply want to be preached to, and will pay for the privilege? Is it because parents want their children to be preached to, and will pay to make it happen? Is it because if they don't put a positive message into the story, they'll be deluged with telephone calls and letters from bored old people about how they're ruining society? The simplest answer isn't any of these, it's who gives a shit? The fact is that movies with morals sell.

      Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re: Well... by Cederic · · Score: 2

      I'm curious, what makes you accuse him of being a "misogynistic asshole"?

    23. Re:Well... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I specifically did NOT mention the people who may be working on any particular sitcom, whose motives may vary. The purpose of the sitcom itself is to make money, as I said. And you can be sure that not everyone who works on a sitcom really gives a shit about changing society for the better via a sitcom - it's first and foremost a job.

      And you're wrong - movies without morals sell. Or have you forgotten about pr0n? Snuff films? Pretty much any movie that glorifies violence? In the last case, it's the killing, the wanton destruction of property, the body count, etc. that sell. Same with the news - "if it bleeds, it leads." Not the ending where the "bad guys" get their comeuppance. Otherwise, Hollywood could skip all those special effects and just cut straight to the end.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re:Well... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2
      I certainly don't agree with the troll you responded to, but I can't agree with much of what you've stated either:

      Just look at Hedy Lamarr. She wasn't just an A-list actress - she also invented and patented, among other things, spread-spectrum communications - in 1941.

      Just look at Hedy Lamarr. She wasn't just an A-list actress - she also co- invented and patented, among other things, a specific, mechanical way of doing spread-spectrum communications - a technology that was used during WWI, was published about in 1908, had been experimented on before that .

      So you're willing to exaggerate her accomplishment, hide the man who did the work with her, and imply that it was "before it's time"? If you need to distort the facts that much just to get a "top ten" list of female STEM contributors, isn't that an argument against women in tech?

      And after that barrage of misinformation, you want us to just trust you when you say that questions about Ada Lovelace and Marie Curie's second prize are illegitimate? That they could only come from sexism against women - not because people have been pushing to exaggerate women's accomplishments, and not just normal controversies? Seriously?

      Glaring proof of such prejudice was infamously provided by Lawrence Summers, ... “issues of intrinsic aptitude.”

      More than a decade ago one guy gave a speech that you managed to quote-mine four words from (out of a 79-word sentence), and then describe with bad-sounding adjectives! With standards that low the creationists are right - Darwin clearly didn't think the eye could evolve! /s

      He started his speech by stating that it was an "attempt at provocation", started the sentence you quote-mined with "So my best guess, to provoke you ...", and followed that sentence with "I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong...". OMG, such misogyny!

    25. Re: Well... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Allow me to introduce you to Tom (Barbara) Hudson. He's a narcissist who jumped on the alt-left bandwagon, and because he hated white males, he paid to have his genitals removed. He hates me quite a bit just because I'm a white male (in spite of my making gestures of goodwill) and ever since then I've called him out on his BS lies.

      He also shares much in common with nazis as he advocates a complete ban of anonymous speech (a la China) in addition to speech codes, and advocates penalties up to and including violence against those he disagrees with, plus eugenics, plus he's quite a bigot.

      If ever there was an example of an alt-left...this is it, plain as day.

    26. Re: Well... by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Wait? You've been working at least a decade, so you must have worked with hundreds of men. And you've found four examples? And still haven't been able to demonstrate that they have any inadequacies?

      Fucking hell, ring the universities! We need to produce a paper on this now!

      Incidentally, what the fuck is with bullying men that don't share your perspective on what's important with life? You appear to be horrified that some men aren't giving three quarters of their income to a woman, and apparently they're the one that's inadequate? No. If you really don't hate men, then perhaps try fucking understanding them from time to time.

    27. Re: Well... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Rich whites do - I doubt a trailer park dwelling son of a single mother on welfare would have been treated the same. I wish you social justice types would stop making assumptions about people based on their physical characteristics. All you do is alienate lots of people who've never done anything wrong.

    28. Re: Well... by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

      Google shouldn't be trying to fix anything. They should not be shaping our culture through propaganda.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    29. Re: Well... by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you really fail to understand the difference between "cliche" and "entertainment"?
      I care about character development, storyline and the universe inside which the movie is built, rather than how actors look like or the percentage of *this* or *that* skin color in the movie.

      In fact, there is a reason for stereotypes. That's to not distract viewers from what the filmmakers really want to show in their movie.

      For example the scenario calls for some computer stuff, so they need a computer guy. The computer guy is that not important to the story, and his race and gender even less so. So what they do is tap in the expectations of the public : a computer guy should be a nerdy white male. If they diverge from the stereotype, people will notice that and the character will draw attention, but it is not what they want, they don't want you to think "hey, a black girl is playing the hacker, interesting", when that hacker is totally secondary to the story.

      What made me realize that is the comment of a sound director about dubbing screeching tires sounds for a car driving on gravel. He said that, yes, he knows it is wrong, but it is a short scene, and most people probably don't even notice the gravel. So as the car accelerates, if it makes the proper sound, spectators will think "what is this sound? oh yes, gravel" for a second, and this is not what you want from a breathtaking action scene. He also said that he has to adapt. It it is clearly shown that the car is on gravel, that the gravel is important or that spectators become too knowledgeable of this particular trope, he will use the correct sound because doing otherwise would be the distraction.

    30. Re: Well... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      Mr. Robot is refreshing in this regard.

    31. Re: Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ahh yes, our great patriarchy. The land where women hitting men is funny, but the second he hits back the people laughing now step in because... patriarchy? This wonderful patriarchy where more women are attending and succeeding in higher education. The partriarchy where women serve less time for the same crime. A grand patriarchy where women are deemed the better parent the vast majority of the time, and single dads have trouble not being thought of as pedophiles for taking their kids to the park. Yep, society truly favors men. A patriarchy where saying something that is misinterpreted as mysoginy gets a man fired, but "misandry doesn't exist".

      If men are running a patriarchy, they're certainly doing a lousy job putting themselves at the top of the social food chain.

    32. Re: Well... by Warma · · Score: 2

      Nah.

      I'm pretty much a "guy in his 30s whose social life is limited to playing video games with other guys". Of course it's a bit more complex than that, and like any human being, I personally I feel that I have a vast array of interests, an eye for art, and complex inner world, but I'm simply not delusional enough to assume that a random woman would see me as anything else than a perfect representation of that stereotype.

      That kind of rants prey on the insecurities of people here, as evidenced by the number of replies, and the process itself is actually quite funny. These flamewars belong to Slashdot and I'd rather see them than lament their absence.

    33. Re: Well... by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      These are just kids we're talking about, mostly extremely image-conscious, and expected to choose a career path based on media portrayal and far too little solid information.

      This image conscious attitude should not be coddled, especially if the goal is a career in a STEM field. The truth cares not for self image or the perception of others. If the media is what's responsible for reenforcing the assumption that competency is measured by social conformance and dress codes (or socjus garbage), then that is the problem to deal with, not adding more distortions to the pile just to make the field more appealing to people who care more about those things than the truth. Such people will hold back progress as they will greatly outnumber the competent, less extraverted, and eventually crowd them out, replacing them with mediocrity.

      I'll pass.

  2. Yeah hollywood by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least make it consistent with reality and either put in a Chinese undergrad or underpaid Indian dude.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Yeah hollywood by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At least make it consistent with reality

      The whole purpose of this is NOT to be consistent with reality, and NOT show things as they really are. The goal is to create an illusionist Utopia la-la land where everyone rides winged unicorns, where minorities ARE the majority, all races just absolutely love each other, Muslim terrorists drop the van keys and mount flowers on their machetes and swords, etc.

      Hmmm . . . so they call this practice "Intervention" . . . I'd call it censorship++. This is stuff the former East German Stasi Secret Police used to do with televisions programs there. The scripts were inspected and "re-written be conform with Socialist Ideology.

      TV shows that are reality-space-time-Schrödinger's-Cat-In-Your-Laptop-warped crazy propaganda tend to be unintentionally funny.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Yeah hollywood by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole purpose of this is NOT to be consistent with reality, and NOT show things as they really are. The goal is to create an illusionist Utopia la-la land....

      And why is that a bad thing, when we're specifically talking about films here, and not documentaries? Films are already not reality, unless you currently have problems with giant robots stomping through your town.
       
      Not only is there no harm in showing a happier version of reality in film, it might actually do some good, as we know that films can be influential. I'm really confused by why you are so angry about this. Every film should be a documentary on your gritty white suburban life?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    3. Re:Yeah hollywood by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      I'm really confused by why you are so angry about this.

      I'm not angry about it . . . I just don't like forced censorship. I like free speech.

      Every film should be a documentary on your gritty white suburban life?

      No, all filmmakers should be able to choose for themselves if they make cheesy Disney Star Wars sugar-festival film, or boring reality Kardashian infotainment, or The Heart Healthy Good 'Ole Zombie Deep Fried Turkey cook show, or a THX-1138.

      A private company with too much money and promoting their own agenda, no matter how noble, by forcibly manipulating content providers . . . ?

      No, thanks. Read up on what "Totalitarianism" means.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Yeah hollywood by Kohath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you been forced by google to change your film script?

      These guys were forced by Google to delete a post.

      Want to see the post so you can applaud Google for taking a correct moral stand? Well, you can't. It's gone. Google abused their market control in web advertising and had it censored.

      You may read only what Google allows you to read. You didn't want to decide for yourself anyway, did you?

    5. Re:Yeah hollywood by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you been forced by google to change your film script?

      I don't write film scripts. However, maybe I do like to have a choice to listen to what others have to say . . . ? Is Google limiting that choice based on what they think they would like people to listen to . . . ?

      That sounds like the stuff what countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia, et al do with the Internet: Limit the voices of anything that the government doesn't like.

      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

      Encouraging diversity is good idea, in my opinion. Using censorship to do it by a private organization is not good social hygiene, and a wee bit dangerous, methinks. Maybe some folks with lots of money will start using censorship to promote other agendas, that are not so altruistic . . . ?

      "Hi, I'm Dave, your new, ideal TV friend! I buy all my food and things online from Amazon! All my closest friends use Facebook all the time! You'll want to be like me, and also by from Amazon and use Facebook!"

      Sound silly? Take a look at some old former East German TV shows and films from the late 80's trying to promote their illusion of Socialist Ideals. They are hilarious. When push comes to shove, the former East Germany was just another totalitarian state: a small group of rich and powerful decided what they thought was best for everyone, and force fed their dogma to everyone. Sure you were free to leave whenever you want, but they shot at you a bit while you were on your way out the door. The top politicians in the former East Germany even had their own gated community, with stores stuffed with Western luxury goods. Kinda sorta sounds like the Google folks running this show living in Silicon Valley . . . um, do they live in diverse communities . . . or gated ones . . . ?

      Maybe instead of trying to force others to promote diversity, they could maybe do something about it themselves . . . ? Oh, the housing prices there will ensure that Google executives will have neighbors with the "right kind" of diversity.

      Newer documentaries with interviews of artists who struggled under censorship of the old Communists are less amusing.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Yeah hollywood by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That sounds like the stuff what countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia, et al do with the Internet: Limit the voices of anything that the government doesn't like.

      Except it's nothing like it. Do that in China or Saudi Arabia and get beaten, jailed and/or disappeared. Do it in front of google and they might write a strongly worded letter or stop paying you money!

      So equivalent.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Yeah hollywood by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Sure they can. All they have to do is threaten to cut off everyone who does business with you or links to you. Your associates probably like being in business more than they like you. If one of them doesn't, well let's see if their associates like being in business.

      I see how you've founded a slippery slope, greased it up, taken a good run up and taken an epic slide right to the bottom. Was it fun? It sounds fun.

      You are of course being deeply dishonest. Instead of starting with your point, you start with a peripherally related point. When I address that, you go do the bait-and-switch because I didn't deduce the point you were trying to drive at.

      No matter your argument, not paying someone for their freeze peach is not and will never be censorship except for the most delicate, most whiny of snowflakes (that's you, bro).

      That is an independent problem of if large companies are too powerful (they are) and if the monopoly abuse protections are too weak (they are).

      But regardless of those it is STILL not censorship if someone won't pay you sweet advertising moolah for your article r website.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Yeah hollywood by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      So your argument is that Google's actions are not within the precise, technical definition of the word "censorship". Agreed. They have the same effect though, which is why I used the words "effectively censor", meaning to take an action that has the effect of censoring.

      Translation: not paying money is muh censorship!1one

      Google is not delisting their page. Google is not harming their position in the rankings. Google still won't do either of those if they fine an alternative advertising network. Google is certainly not delisting or harming anyone who links to them.

      All that is happening is that google is not going to pay them advertising dollars.

      Google should stop bullying people. You should stop defending their bullying behavior.

      Well, truly I hope you don't face any actual adversity in your life, because your bar for "bullying" is so phenomenally low that if someone actually did something bad to you you'd probably implode.

      Plus you know, censorship is actually a bad thing. Having little delicate snowflakes like you crying wolf continuously actually does the no censorship cause far more harm than good. Now you know this the, if you persist then the only rational conclusion is that you actually like censorship and you are in fact trying to discredit the case against it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. rappers by musikit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i dont see many white males represented in rap videos. i guess that is the reason that there is a under representation of white males in rap. we should start a change.org petition demanding that white males be equally represented in rap videos in order to grow the number of white males in rap

    1. Re:rappers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are in the minority? Given that whites outnumber blacks about 5:1, shouldn't we expect - nay, DEMAND - that rap stars also have the same racial background proportions? For every black rapper, we need 5 white rappers. For every black basketball player, we need 5 white basketball players.

      And don't even get me started on gender and teachers and nurses - or even college students! Right now, there is a massive imbalance in gender in college, with women making up about 64% of all undergrads, but just 50% of the population, meaning we need to kick many of them out and replace them with men! And fat people, we need MORE representation of fat people EVERYWHERE, given they are the majority of US population. Models, TV/film actors, CEOs, soldiers, etc.

      We need to make sure that each demographic is proportionately represented in any aspect of society. After all, white male lives matter. We need equal rights for all, and we must use the SJW metric of equality - that every race, gender, religion is equally represented in all aspects of life, according to their prevalence in society as a whole! Until we have 100% strictly-quota-aligned employment in society, then society is inherently evil and must be torn down. Right?

  4. Will this effort target the "other direction" too? by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to a 2015 USC report, President Obama was kept abreast of efforts to challenge media's stereotypical portrayals of women...

    This news piece talks of the absence of male teachers.

    I'd like to have an effort targeted to this imbalance too. Google, anyone?

  5. Doomed To Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An experiment has been conducted many times where they throw a load of female toys (typically dolls) and male toys (typically trucks) around a monkey enclosure. Every time it is conducted, the female monkeys play with the dolls and the male monkey's play with the trucks. Here's a video of the experiment being carried out on BBC's Horizon:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm9xXyw2f7g

    The simple fact is, men and women are different and therefore have different interests. The reason women are under-represented in computer science is because most women aren't interested in the subject. It's the same reason men are under-represented in child care - most men have no interest in looking after young children.

    What Google are doing is fascist style propaganda that ignores the truth and pushes the party narrative. They then severely punish anyone who questions the narrative.

    Google is true evil.

    1. Re:Doomed To Fail by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I took my nephew to volleyball practice a couple times, and noticed a marked gender difference. During practice the kids got into a line and the instructor tossed balls at them one at a time so they could hit it back. The girls were attentive and accurate. The boys were goofing off and frequently mis-hit the balls.

      Then they started playing a game and kept score. Suddenly the boys were focused and accurate, while the girls stood around talking to each other and missed shots. One of them even got hit in the head by the ball because she wasn't even watching.

      While both boys and girls were capable of playing well, there was a marked gender difference in the situation which caused them to use that capability to the fullest.

    2. Re:Doomed To Fail by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The point here is that people take cues from other people, especially children looking to adults for guidance. In the programme they actually tried giving older children (age 7) toys meant for the opposite gender, and again they enjoyed playing with them.

      One striking observation was that girls seemed to have less ability than boys when it came to working with construction toys and spacial puzzles. Boys tended to have trouble expressing emotions other than anger, lacking the vocabulary. Both of those things changed with relatively little effort and in a relatively short time - both girls and boys just needed practice and some encouragement to do things that they assumed their gender was not good at.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Doomed To Fail by anarkhos · · Score: 2

      And yet the differences are stark.

      We deny biological differences at our own peril. Even if your goal is to have more women in tech (a goal I don't personally understand but whatever), you're not going to get anywhere without considering all the FACTS (which was James Damore's whole point).

      Female employee diversity at Google from 2013 to 2016 was completely flat. Their diversity project was an abject failure. Obviously, there was no glass ceiling. Women just have better things to do that sit on their ass all day coding!

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
  6. Underrepresented minorities? Like who? by mveloso · · Score: 2

    What minorities are you talking about? Indians and other Asians?

    1. Re:Underrepresented minorities? Like who? by Teun · · Score: 2

      According to the previous /. article about millennial the minorities include older people.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  7. Re:Will this effort target the "other direction" t by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

    I'd like to have an effort targeted to this imbalance too. Google, anyone?

    Why not you?

  8. Definitely the problem by Archtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The problem with the hackneyed stereotype of the socially inept, hoodie-clad white male coder? It does not inspire underrepresented groups to pursue careers in computer science..."

    Yeah, because Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Bacon, Newton, Leibniz, and all the groundbreaking mathematicians, scientists and technologists up through Einstein, Turing, Feynman and Berners-Lee took up science and technology because they were inspired by someone they saw on TV.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    1. Re:Definitely the problem by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      You really want to say that life decades and/or centuries ago was open and filled with opportunities for regular people? Really?

      Yes these people really believe that.

      They cant comprehend that what the majority of famous people from history had was the free time necessary to spend a lot of time doing the things that interested them.

      ...and nothing has changed, but these people wont accept that either. They think that they can force people to do things that do not interest them, and that good outcomes will be the result.

      Its been proven time and again that social constructionism has bad outcomes.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Definitely the problem by anarkhos · · Score: 2

      This is the dumbest post of the day.

      The reason there are fewer female geniuses is largely biology. Women are nature's safe bet, while men are the wildcard. Men fill the prisons and somehow I don't hear feminists wining about that!

      Also, men have more compartmentalized brains and deal wit stress better (on the whole). This lends itself to a narrow focus on logical problems for extended periods of time.

      We also live shorter and less socially active lives. It's not like a career in math or science is the ultimate goal in life FFS!

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
  9. Re:Will this effort target the "other direction" t by doctorvo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not you?

    Same reason feminists love to talk about how more other women should be coders but don't want to be coders themselves.

  10. And....., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I just went DuckDuckGo

  11. Fuck off google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know who else wasn't inspired by stereotypical white nerds wearing hoodies to go into tech?
    Me, a fucking white male. I went into tech because I enjoy it, not because of socially retarded idiots on tv.

  12. What a weird mishmashed write-up by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Based on our research, one of the reasons girls and underrepresented minorities are not pursuing computer science is because of the negative perception of computer scientists and the relevance of the field beyond coding."

    This line seems to be taken from a document about the movie Hidden Figures.

    That "Made with Code" project seems particularly absurd. They're trying to trick girls into learning how to program by making it about clothes and fashion. Feminism seems more intent on reinforcing stereotypes than those they accuse of misogyny.

  13. Hoodie-clad? by PPH · · Score: 2

    This is the Hollywood image of coders that I grew up with.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Power corrupts by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Power corrupts.

    Back when Google behaved well - text ads, "do no evil", non-commercial search result ranking - they were new, and essentially powerless.

    However, Google acquired considerable power consequent to its abandonment of those good behaviors. Corruption breeds more corruption; corruption also breeds power.

    It's no surprise that they have now decided to impose social engineering on the population at large. The only remaining question is if the current trend in their behavior will be impacted by any challengers. Doesn't really look like it.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Power corrupts by pipingguy · · Score: 2

      "they have now decided to impose social engineering on the population"

      And it's not the new definition of 'social engineering' (scamming people for password access) this time, it's the actual meaning of social engineering.

  15. Re:Google Wants To Fake The Face Of Coding by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    My older sister went from being able to change an alternator (never what you'd call a 'competent wrench') to not being able to change a tire.

    What happened in the interim? She learned to bounce her tits at her boyfriends and have them do the work.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  16. What bullshit by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Informative

    NCIS has prominently featured a female hacker for more than a decade now. A female hacker who possesses all the same superpowers as every male hacker: she can get through any encryption in as much under 44 minutes as is required to advance the plot.

    Warehouse 13 prominently featured a female hacker for very nearly the entirety of its 5 year run, beginning 8 years ago. She didn't exhibit her hacking superpowers nearly as frequently as Abby in NCIS, but Allison Scagliotti made up for it by being improbably beautiful.

    Leverage prominently featured a black male hacker for the entirety of its 4 year run, beginning 9 years ago. He too had all the requisite hacking superpowers Hollywood insists on depicting.

    Hell, we can go all the way back to Hackers, in 1995, to find a very young Angelina Jolie playing yet another improbably beautiful female hacker. We don't know if she had hacking superpowers because real computers didn't actually appear in that movie, but I'm sure if there were any, she would have.

    Other examples are plentiful. In short, Hollywood has been injecting minorities and women into a predominantly white male role for more than a generation, predating even the existence of Google. It doesn't matter. In the face of persistent, even pervasive propaganda for an entire generation, the number of women getting CS degrees has gone down, not up. It's almost as if people object to fake role models routinely doing the impossible, especially when they know damn well that the job is simultaneously boring (to their minds) and insanely complicated, and nothing like what's depicted on TV, because guess what, everybody can use a computer, and nearly everybody has, at least a little, so they know the reality is far different.

    Bullshit propaganda is bullshit, and also a demonstrated failure. But you just keep on keepin' on, Google. I'm sure it'll start working. Aaaaany minute now...

    (Actually, white males should probably be thanking Google for these efforts. After 25 years of anti-correlation, their propaganda seems to have had the affect of reinforcing their dominance of the field. Want a fake hacker? Hire a pretty girl or a black man. Want your computer fixed? Hire a white man.)

  17. Google Diversity: now with Cultural Marxism by Noishkel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know when I hear people like Paul Joseph Watson and Infowars as a whole rail about cultural Marxism I mostly just chuckle at it for the comedy that it mostly is. But every so often assholes in the tech industry prove the other crazies correct by their very actions. People at Google are so damn obsessed with diversity of skin ton and genital shape that it's starting to ignore the very concept of Google as a money making company in favor of being a vehicle for social change.

    Jesus, Google couldn't get the right mix or woman and the 'correct' kind of racial minority in positions of power by hiring them... so they got people in the media to PRETEND that it's that way?? Actually I aint even mad. I'm just flat out amused at how pathetic both Hollywood and Google is in in this. They want to make sure people doing FAKE HACKING and IT work while say shit like 'I'm rerouting through the firewall with encryption!' Oh man, that's just comedy gold.

  18. Re:Will this effort target the "other direction" t by Rande · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I actually tried. Apparently I wasn't 'passionate' enough about teaching. The gatekeepers want it to be a vocation rather than just a job.

    As to why other guys don't, it's a thankless low paid job and just an accusation of sexual impropriety can run you out of the profession.

    The worst that women have to deal with in IT is variable hygiene standards and some non-PC jokes. (Okay, they have to deal with a bunch of other stuff as well, but they aren't IT specific).

  19. Uh.... what? by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Based on our research, one of the reasons girls and underrepresented minorities are not pursuing computer science is because of the negative perception of computer scientists...

    The problem I have with this statement is that it seems equivalent to saying that "girls and underrepresented minorities" are somehow more likely to care what other people think about them if they otherwise did try to pursue a field that they believed was interesting, to such a degree that they will not try to pursue such a field in the first place if they feel that they may be negatively perceived because of it. Of course, one may argue that they are more likely to care about it because of all the other discrimination against them, and I do not wish to be dismissive of such unjust discrimination, but in the end, it still amounts to them caring more about what other people think.

    Which, to be blunt... and I hate to sound insensitive here, is really their own effing problem. If the only real thing stopping you from pursuing a field, regardless of what it is, is the fear of what other people are going to think of you if you did, then I'm pretty darn sure that you probably wouldn't be a good fit for that field in the first place.

    Find something that you love to do enough that it won't matter what other people are going to think, or else you will never be happy. That much is going to be true for both men and women, and people of all races and demographics.

  20. 2001 A Space Odyssey, and Westworld (Yul Brenner) by mrflash818 · · Score: 2

    Turner classic movies had two sci-fi classics yesterday: 2001 A Space Odyssey, and Westworld (with Yul Brenner). Re-watched both.

    Odyssey was 1968 and Kubrick. Westworld was 1973 and Michael Crichton.

    It bothers me now, to see that Odyssey had _zero_ diversity. I was critically looking for anyone, even background cast that just walks past the camera, or is in a shot.

    Westworld had diversity. Both as scientific types in the underground control center, as well as being visitors to the leisure worlds.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  21. More "Women are the primary victims of war" by PoopMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Based on our research, one of the reasons girls and underrepresented minorities are not pursuing computer science is because of the negative perception of computer scientists and the relevance of the field beyond coding."

    Funny how no one cared about the stereotypes men would face for being so nerdy/geeky/whatever when computers weren't as profitable or such a big part of society.

  22. The Smoak Syndrome by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would consider it a major achievement if Hollywood just acknowledged the difference between IT guys, software developers and cyber security specialists. Instead the tube is filled with Felicity Smoaks who alternate among hacking into metropolitan CCTV systems, writing applications to sift and parse through data they've just downloaded from a satellite (that they also hacked into) and re-wiring routers to transmit on a different frequency. These people don't exist in any race or gender in real life.

    1. Re:The Smoak Syndrome by houghi · · Score: 2

      As you are on /., I am assuming you are working in IT or an IT related job, like software developer or cyber security specialist, as you mention them specifically.
      You have noticed that these jobs are not represented in a realistic way and that is probably true.

      What I want to know if you think these are the ONLY ones that are represented wrong, because I assume you are aware that they are not the only ones.

      Lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers, police men, drunk people, bank directors, ...none of them is realistic. None of the jobs they do are done that way in real life. And you are not special to have your job sorted out while the rest is not.

      So you either get over it and enjoy the store of CGI or whatever it is there is to enjoy, or you start watching documentaries.

      I do not expect a police man to jump out of buildings, shoot up bad guys, take them to court and find the evidence all by himself on his last day before retirement where his boss yells at him and being forced to work together with a person he hates, but becomes his best buddy.

      Taking some leeway with hacking is the least of the issues if you think that things should be realistic. And I would rather have nice story with unrealistic people than a boring one with realistic ones.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  23. "All your attention are belong to us [the google]" by shanen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does it seem like the "news" is dominated by "fake" or "stupid" in various ways? Oh yeah. I seem to have forgotten where the fish started rotting...

    The "Don't be evil" fantasy at the google died long ago. I'm pretty sure you just didn't notice until "the last year", and the minor question is "What blinded you?" Maybe your dreams of getting hired by the google died?

    The google's primary motto has become "All your attention are belong to us so we can sell more advertising as we [the google] seek perfection defined by infinite profit." This is actually tightly linked to the evolution of the google's mission statement. Turned out that all of the world's information was too overwhelming and the metric of utility was too unclear. They fixed that by focusing on making the advertisers' ads the highest priority information and using profit as the primary metric of utility. Which finally leads us to the religious part of it:

    "There is no gawd but profit, and Apple, Gilead, Google, Exxon, and some giant gamblers are profit's prophets."

    That's based on Fortune's ranking, and I'm grouping banks, speculators, and money changers as "gamblers". Other sources define "profits" slightly differently and come up with different lists. I just saw one with Exxon higher up and Samsung included. Plus the prophets change over time.

    I've come to believe that a problem without a solution is meaningless. Since I can prove that the so-called "problem" of "more profit" has no solution, I reject it. The proof is simple. There are infinite numbers, therefore there is no maximum profit. If you want a more technical proof, you can use any of the infinite set proofs. Personally I like the infinite prime numbers.

    I think it would be better if our economic system were organized around two different principles: (1) Increasing freedom, and (2) Improving the use of our limited time. As a result of practicing those principles, I don't have the money to bribe the cheapest politicians to rig the rules of the game in favor of larger profits. In contrast, the google has become a YUGE lobbyist.

    You don't want to get me started on fake individuals. Suffice it to say that corporations are NOT human beings.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  24. Re:race gap vs gender gap (incarceration) by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2

    The different incarceration rates based on gender correlate to testosterone.

    Completely true, and if you're a bully you'll want to mock them for it (e.g. men think with their dicks).

    On the other hand, pointing out the other things that correlate with testosterone levels, like willingness to take risks or mechanical aptitude, is wrong-think. Men and women must identical ... except when women are better.

    And given that men have much higher levels of testosterone, this would explain the higher male prison population.

    It explains part of it, but not all of it. Even when you only look at non-violent, first-time offenders men get longer sentences and higher fines for the same crimes than women do.

    Consider that both chemical and surgical castration [nih.gov] reduce the rate of repeat pedophile offenders from 50% to between 2% and 5%. Testosterone clearly plays a role.

    Ok, but is that a change in risk-taking, libido, or some vague 'badness' that you obviously think men have?