05 | Google Docs is giving “inclusivity warnings”
And when did my pen decide what I could write?
First off, happy late Easter! As you’re aware, no new posts came out this preceding weekend. I intend to keep my writing restrained to weekdays so I have more time to enjoy life, family, and unwind. I have no excuse for yesterday.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31086310
This has been a concern of mine since the end of 2020 when I first noticed Google Docs intruding on my articles during college with “inclusive changes”. How it works is that if Google Docs detects the use of an “inappropriate” word, which can be anything from a standard curse to something benign and completely unoffensive as “hey, guys”, it will insert a purple underline and provide more “inclusive” suggestions. The particular change linked to in the Hacker News thread is specific to Google Workspaces, but it’s not just Google deciding what words are appropriate to say. Microsoft GitHub unilaterally changed the default name of git’s primary branch from “master” to “main” overnight due to a perceived lack of inclusivity in 2020. As I write this Microsoft Word is trying to put words in my mouth by predicting every next word with “smart suggestions”. If you still don’t think Google and other large corporations have an outsized effect on how real people communicate, consider the East Cut.
For decades, the district south of downtown and alongside San Francisco Bay here was known as either Rincon Hill, South Beach or South of Market. This spring, it was suddenly rebranded on Google Maps to a name few had heard: the East Cut.
The peculiar moniker immediately spread digitally, from hotel sites to dating apps to Uber, which all use Google’s map data. The name soon spilled over into the physical world, too. Real-estate listings beckoned prospective tenants to the East Cut. And news organizations referred to the vicinity by that term.
Inclusive language is not inherently wrong, and being welcoming to others is important for the health of any project. But forcing it upon a writer is paramount to a chef covering your lobster with ketchup because it’s the most general condiment. The intentions behind the decision might have been good natured, but the results are overbearing and feel malicious. I choose to use gendered pronouns in my writing like many authors because I think it sounds better. Just because I use “mailman” instead of “mailperson” doesn’t mean a woman cannot deliver my tax return. I encourage you to mentally replace any pronouns with whatever makes you feel most included in my writing. This feels implicit, and common in most works brought from an earlier age despite the initial authors intent. As in any art, nothing is realized without the reader. So why now must we suggest sanitizing authors when it’s always been up to the reader to decide how a story makes them feel?
Last week, I asked how you solve mental clutter. Some of you replied with an assortment of writing tools like Google Docs, Apple Notes, and scraps of paper. Others, I know, spend a few hours a week over a beautifully curated scheduler with different pens and stickers making a perfect summary of the days ahead. That individuality is beautiful and should be cherished in the tools writers (and everyone) use to keep track of our thoughts. So why is it considered default and appropriate to stamp out that individuality?
What gives these corporations the right to determine what’s acceptable for you or me to say? And why do we expect respect from advertising businesses built on exploiting our privacy? In part, I blame us for being so easily lulled into the effortlessness of having something else think on our behalf. When it comes to writing, we all make mistakes. Whether unintentionally through a finger slipup or a lack of knowledge, no piece goes unpublished without an edit or grammar check. To an extent, that’s fine! Why should I have to memorize the dictionary? But letting a machine decide if a writer should substitute his synonyms or suggest an entirely new word? How is that writer supposed to grow? Or develop a voice?
A strong counterpoint to this idea is to bring up that these “suggestions” are simply suggestions. Nothing is making me not write “hey, guys”. I’m free to ignore it and write what whatever pleases me. But by that logic, advertisements are simply suggestions and children are free to not smoke if a cool cowboy is on the back of a gum carton. We draw the line at advertisements that promote harmful behavior or bad habits because they influence our decisions. Inclusive language on the surface is not harmful but promoting it or other all-encompassesing ideas on the human condition over counter points diminishes the ability of protestors and counter intellectuals to have real, meaningful, conversations about contentious issues like healthcare for trans children, forgiving student loans, and Covid-19. Google should not be the source of what’s morally right in the world. That is up for individuals to decide and respectfully discuss. You don’t have to agree with me about what ideas should be pushed or if ideas should be pushed at all—tools should remain neutral until asked otherwise, but you cannot ignore the blind spots stifling difficult discussion produces. If an idea is so right and powerful as to be gospel, then it should be capable of withstanding—and indeed be welcoming of—sharp criticism. Otherwise, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that you’re not lying to my face, or to yourself.
What do you think? Should writing tools promote certain kinds of language or is that up to the author? Are suggestions the same as advertisements? Leave a comment below or reply if you’re reading this as an email.