Google’s new feature of popping up alternative words to help with writing to sound more fluent is not a bad idea. However, when attempting to replace words that are considered politically correct, concerns arise, such as how some English words are offensive or too general on a global scale.
The Sun reported that Google’s word processor algorithm offers more inclusive words for non-inclusive words, such as “mankind,” “landlord,” and “policeman.” These non-inclusive words can be replaced by “humankind,” “proprietary,” and “police officer.” Other words such as “wife” can also be replaced by other inclusive words that Google suggests. The online document editor also raises an issue about the words used by Martin Luther King Jr. in his speech and in the Sermon of the Mount. The New York Post reported that the Vice writer also pointed out that some words were not flagged. In the transcription of an interview with David Duke, the KKK’s leader, the n-words and several sinful terms are mentioned as examples.
This raises concern as to how this program will work out in many sectors, especially education, around the world. Why are words like “marvelous” in the Sermon of the Mount and “I have a speech” in Martin Luther King’s speech? What words are appropriate and not appropriate to use then? When should the line be drawn between what are considered harmful words based on how the terms are used in a particular context?
What Google called “assisted writing” is confusing as to why the word “policeman” is offensive or why the word “marvelous” should be replaced by “lovely.” These non-inclusive words are most commonly used in schools and countries with an English-speaking population.
The words “policeman”and “policewoman” just describe a member of a specific sex in a police force. The word “police officer” is a broad term. It depicts men and women as members of a police force, with no indication of which sex the individuals are referring to. In a sentence, the word “marvelous” is used to express the quality of art, music, and so forth. It is not a dehumanizing expression, as in the study of interracial couples and how the Bible and countries perceive interracial marriage.
Silkie Carlo from Big Brother Watch spoke out that Google was limiting free speech and privacy. It was a way of controlling individuals by telling them what to type instead of letting them think for themselves.
Google has already rolled it out to a select group of business users and enabled it by default. In the meantime, the company does not have a solution to identify and mitigate all harmful word associations and biases. It is still in the process of improving.
By and large, it is good that the company is still improving at identifying harmful words. Then again, what words are offensive or harmful in Google’s environment is unclear, let alone the company’s definition of harmfulness. Are words and expressions that incite violence, hate, degradation, and bias actions considered harmful or hate speech, or is it “speaking the truth in love“? Note that “speaking the truth in love” is contrary to how hate speech affects others in a negative way.
