The word I've heard on the street is that her paper passed the normal internal peer review process at Google (which is open wrt to the reviewers' identities) and was then hit with a second, just for her and her paper review process that had secret identities and made ultimatums that the paper simply wouldn't allowed to be published based on it's content, even with edits.
I'd be pissed in those circumstances too, seeing it as an affront to the academic process in general, and be looking at the obvious reasons why they chose me and my paper to apply these previously unheard of constraints to.
The only valid point of contention here is the demanding removal of her name on the paper.
My game theory'ish take on the demands.
Gebru
1.The demands were reasonable so she herself should have no issue sharing them. Vindicates her position against Google and proves herself and her theories correct, scoring a huge victory for her AI research.
2.Even she know her demands were so ridiculous she is not comfortable sharing them.
Option one has not happened so that leaves two. Google really has no good outcome in sharing them it could be considered all variety of violations HR so they likely never will without her permission.
> The only valid point of contention here is the demanding removal of her name on the paper.
My understanding is that the review required a full retraction of the paper so that it wouldn't be published, not just removing her name.
And your game theory view leaves out that she's in the middle of a lawsuit now, and the first thing her lawyer would have said is to stop talking publicly.
