> I find myself asking why it matters that the Weaver residents were originally not from Austin.
> the real crux of this issue is that rich white people are so much more prioritized by the law that a couple of irate Karens can overrule an entire neighbourhoods opinion.
There's no reason to be racist. Cultures vary regionally. Californians in general act differently than Texans in general. Rural Americans in general act differently than urban Americans. Some people like their culture and community and don't want it to change just because rich outsiders come in.
A handful of companies influencing the overton window of the entire nation in response to easily upset Twitter mobs is precisely what I consider to be part of cancel culture.
Given her history and ultimatum, the chances of her doxxing them publicly was high. Given her public response since her resignation, Google's caution in releasing that information appears justified to me.
> process that does not provide for anonymous feedback
What makes you say this? Ultimately, the process is determined by Google. She had managers say she couldn't get that information. Why wouldn't that be the end of the conversation with regards to their identities?
This is not an example of "firing people that don't buy into the groupthink."
She gave an ultimatum: either doxx the people who said her paper was unfit, or she quits. Google didn't give into her demands so accepted her resignation and moved her end date up because of her browbeating.
> the real crux of this issue is that rich white people are so much more prioritized by the law that a couple of irate Karens can overrule an entire neighbourhoods opinion.
There's no reason to be racist. Cultures vary regionally. Californians in general act differently than Texans in general. Rural Americans in general act differently than urban Americans. Some people like their culture and community and don't want it to change just because rich outsiders come in.