Google’s "inclusive language assistant", now AI driven.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

End users and Google staff are prompted to use different words in cases where a word is now deemed "offensive". Examples of offensive words include Greyhat and Blackhat and many more you may not be aware of.

About the writing assistant - [workspaceupdates.googleblog.com...]

Exhaustive list of bad words - [developers.google.com...]

Google is accused of ‘creepy’ speech policing and going too far with this as it extends into thought policing. It'slikely that a webmaster should pay attention, however, if they wish to rank moving forward. Comply or be gone, eventually? Some of the no-no words

- hands off, hands-off: Use a less figurative phrase, such as automated
- hang, hung: Don't use to refer to a computer or system that is not responding. Instead, use stop responding or not responding.
- he, him, his: Don't use a gendered pronoun except for a specific individual of known gender
- healthy: Don't use
- hit: Don't use as a synonym for click, press, or type
- hover Don't use. Instead use hold the pointer over.
- World Wide Web: Don't use. Instead, use web
- thousands more....

The list is provided by Google and it WILL rewrite your vocabulary no matter how approved your speech patterns are. The list is long.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

foo: Avoid when possible even though it's a common term in the developer community. Instead, use a clearer and more meaningful placeholder name.

In reading over the list of words, which is large and nuanced, one might get the feeling that a lot of the changes are not to avoid offending someone. They seem to be changes designed to help avoid confusing the AI itself as it switches between regions and languages.

Example of words that aren't on the list which may disapear completely: A "snag" in Australia is slang for sausage but it has different meaning in the textbook sense and the slang is from Australia only.

If the list is important to google docs and to employees is it important in our content too? Should Google be altering language itself, or just ranking it? Nobody is asking.

[buckworks]

Some of the items I looked at would be consistent with standard style guides such as The APA Style Guide or The Canadian Press Style Guide.

However, some are just uninformed, such as this one:

appendix
Use the plural appendixes, not appendices

My dictionary closest to hand says this:

USAGE
Appendix typically has the plural appendixes in the anatomical sense, and appendices when referring to a part of a book or document.

More than one proofreading style guide makes the same point.

So read Google's advice about usage with a bit of suspicion.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I watched a baseball game last night after having read that document. I pray baseball announcers never feel the need to modify their language like Google suggests.

- He hits the ball deep, deep, it's going.... that's foul
vs
- A baseball player swings a bat at the ball and strikes it, sending it far into the playing field where it landed outside the boundary line making it a foul ball.

- Boy he can run, he dug in and doubled up that single
vs
- The baseball player can run quickly, his speed allowed him to turn a single into a double during the game.

The announcers every other sentence would not pass Google's guidelines.

Then I realized that it's doubtful any thread on this forum would pass. I wouldn't want them to anyway! Some of that list is quite questionable, I don't feel like Google should even be trying to get people to adjust their language use.

Take a look at the word vaccine in that dictionary closest to your hand, and then go check the current online version where it is now "a preparation that triggers an immune response". Wording implying immunity is removed and I'm pretty sure sceptic tank water would qualify under the new definition. Right or wrong, my point is that this is re-writing dictionaries.... but should it?

[JOSourcing]

My advice is to take these suggestions with a huge grain of salt. I strongly suspect these guidelines are more for Google's own artificial intelligence than for our readers. AI can interpret static (standard) text much more easily than dynamic (expressive) text. So unless you want voluntarily feed Google's AI for free, I suggest you ignore everything they say and concentrate on communicating with your readers instead.

[phranque]

i complain about my spellchecker changing my words, but i rarely keep the incorrect suggestions.
same thing going on here...