Based on your misunderstandings in this thread I doubt it.
The OP post simply brought up not being referenced and questioned if the same would happen to a paper by all white authors. That isn't accusing anyone of explicit racism, certainly isn't "ruining careers", wasn't trying to "cancel" anyone or anything like that.
No, she was not. She said that 'she is tired of her work not getting the credit it deserves', 'that her paper has only 5 citations', and 'would that have happened if the author was a white dude' (hint: yes, it would have happened. Mine and another few thousand papers with white dude authors did not make that lecture. In fact more than 90% of accepted papers in top venues (mine included) did not make that lecture, and more than 99% of arxiv-only papers - to the category that paper belongs considering that it is not peer-reviewed yet did not make that lecture). She literally said that thing would not have happened to white men, and put the #CiteBlackWomen hashtag. Google's head of AI liked the post, S.B. wrote a lengthy post on Facebook about it, N.L. literally wanked over the paper, as did many other prominent dove scholars (who * ironically, did not cite that work too, cause you know, it is an okay unpublished work in a sea of dozens of great works, hundreds of okay published works and thousands of unpublished okay works). It was totally accusing M.R. and J.D. of racism and sexism. Whom obviously had to apologize for a crime that they never did.
When I politely suggested that the paper is not peer-reviewed, and that could have been a reason (I didn't say the frequentist thingy that probability wise, her paper had less 0.1% chance of being cited by virtue of being one of a few thousand unpublished papers in that topic), I got attacked from T.G. for gaslighting, and why I cannot accept that it is racism and #CiteBlackWoman. Her posts got a few hundred likes if I am not mistaken. By the way, did I mentioned that this mistreated black woman is supervised from D.B. (white dude, who was in the paper), one of the most recognizable names in ML. If there was some bias for that paper, it is only positive considering that for 99%+ of people, that is the only recognizable name from the authors. And as everyone knows, people put papers in ArXiv primarily to influence the reviewers (who do not know the names of the authors, but can search the title in google and find if the paper is on ArXiv). There is enough data to suggest that papers in ArXiv do better than those who are not in the reviewing process, precisely cause most of those papers come from big groups with big names, so in this way, the reviewers get a positive bias. She is a privileged person, not discriminated.
Blatant lies and politicization of science.
* One of them I work with (very high in a top-company). She has not answered on the project chat despite specifically tagging her two times for a couple of ideas. Who knows why? Of course, she did not cite that paper on her own two works in GANs, but you know, it is cool being woke.
Oh, this incident would have looked one-off, if it did not came only a couple days after Y.L. essentially had to leave twitter, for the crime of having a different scientific opinion to T.G. about 'the bias in machine learning systems'. We are talking for Y.L whom literally invented the main tool in deep learning. On the other side we have T.G., whom without her Black on AI, would have been a literal nobody (like me), considering that she has only a couple of technical papers published on big venues. But hey, she is apparently one of leading scholars in AI and even made in John Oliver's show.
