Google gender pay gap

[tlink]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

That's not how I am interpreting these events.

This is what the article says:

Google asked for the media to not be at the hearing, but the DoL disagreed.

If the media is at the hearings, then they can have access to the private data since that is being used as evidence/counter-evidence.

 

In other words, this is what happened.

>There is a hearing and the media is there, watching and listening in.

>The Guardian starts reporting on it, posting information about the case.

>Google gets worried that they will have an angry mob after them because of outrage on social media if the press starts posting about the case.

>Google asks to have a private hearing with the DoL, so that the press do not get access to information about the case.

>The court disagrees and allows the press access.

>We now have articles like these, attacking Google.

no, the information is not evidence but the end result. if the government wins the lawsuit, google has to hand over the information (in private, its not part of the trial) or the government can do all kinds of nasty things to them. if google wins the lawsuit then they dont have to provide information. i don't understand why so many people think that the data is evidence in the case, there is no data as evidence because this is not a lawsuit about some statistical fact, nor does it involve some sort of statistical fact as argumentation of either party. never was there any datadumps as evidence, and there will not be any datadumps (as evidence) in this case as it is looking now.