HN Gopher Feed (2017-08-31) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
Criticizing Google got me fired
562 points by pyrophane
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/31...___________________________________________________________________
_sdegutis - 3 hours ago
> Big businesses can threaten free speech when they accumulate too
much power. For Google, that moment has come.This feels like a bit
of an exaggeration in this situation, no? I mean, some states have
at-will employment where they can just fire you for any reason they
want. And if you're doing things that are actively working against
them, of course they're going to want to part ways with you. And
even in states without that, I'm sure there's some clause in their
contract that says "if you speak out against us we have the option
of terminating you." That's not really a free speech issue at that
point, right? Their free speech isn't being hindered or taken away
at all. Rather, a business is making business decisions based on
your speech, which happen to effect you.EDIT: to clarify, I'm all
for the world getting more ethical. I was just kind of arguing a
semantic: free speech is mostly known for being a civil liberty,
and Google technically isn't restricting that in this case.
throwaway2048 - 3 hours ago
This comment seems to be conflating "morally right" with "legally
permitted"
vaishaksuresh - 3 hours ago
Morality also works both way right? If you bite the feeding
hand, how are you morally right?
leggomylibro - 3 hours ago
Depends on what else the feeding hand does with its time.
5ilv3r - 3 hours ago
Everyone knows that morality does not work that way. There is
no 1:1 relationship between righteousness and being a
provider.
jgust - 3 hours ago
> If you bite the feeding hand, how are you morally
right?Whistleblowing? You could argue you have a moral
obligation to your fellow citizens. Not arguing, just
offering an example.
ninkendo - 3 hours ago
Don't be reductionist, he doesn't work for google, he worked
for a nonprofit to which Google donated. Google threw its
weight around to get him fired by threatening to pull
funding.
AndrewKemendo - 3 hours ago
he worked for a nonprofit to which Google donatedIpso
facto, he worked for Schmidt/Google.
tarboreus - 3 hours ago
"Working for" implies paid employment. He never worked
for Google. The think tank is supposed to be independent
from its donors. If, in practice, it's not as independent
as it's supposed to be, all the more reason to admire him
for following the spirit of what the organization was
supposed to do. In no way was he legally or morally
beholden to Google, despite the fact that it was
ultimately revealed that they were in a position to get
him fired. If I hold a gun to your head, you don't owe me
anything--though you might still do what I say.
trapperkeeper74 - 3 hours ago
The correct response would be "Go ahead, kill me now,
motherfucker." ;)
tarboreus - 3 hours ago
A morally defensible, if impractical, position. Kant
would be proud.
trapperkeeper74 - 2 hours ago
Zoom! Let me explain that joke, and the truth behind it.
Murderers and would-be murderers are more likely to:-
derive enjoyment of begging victims than indifferent
ones- respect someone whom is willing to pay the
priceFurthermore, in way, this is what Christians and
nonviolent leaders like Gandi originally meant about
"turn the other cheek"... not being meek and defenseless
but to volunteer for punishment. The bully or abuser is
confused and/or gives respect for such, and then is more
likely to stop doing it. It's not a guarantee, but it's
better than nothing. Only a good guy with a gun or having
massive balls and a plan, can stop a bad guy with a gun.
;)
trapperkeeper74 - 3 hours ago
Incorrect. He was not a Google employee. Google was a
patron of the nonprofit think-tank, NA, and he worked for
NA. The patron didn't like what think-tank was saying and
used leverage to corrupt think-tank because it's leader
lacked integrity and moral courage. NA's leadership
could've chosen to say "FU and here's your money back" to
Google, but they didn't. NA sided with Google, but he
still isn't, and never was, a Google employee. It's
fucked up and every NA patron should pull their funding
if they had any integrity.
AndrewKemendo - 2 hours ago
You work for whoever pays you. In this case
Google/Schmidt paid NA, who paid the author. In an ideal
world, then yes a think tank would be independent of
their funding source. In the real world, they aren't and
never have been. Ignoring this just gets you fired.By all
means shame NA for this, but thinking that it's a scandal
that the non-profit world works for corporate donors is
naiive.
vaishaksuresh - 1 hours ago
>It's fucked up and every NA patron should pull their
funding if they had any integrity.That is what Google
did, just not because of integrity.
pdkl95 - 2 hours ago
By the same argument, I assume you believe the people on
this[1] list also work for Schmidt/Google?[1]
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000067823
AndrewKemendo - 2 hours ago
Yes, of course they do. Why the hell else would alphabet
donate to them?It's literally the best investment they
could make[1]:"Between 2007 and 2012, 200 of America?s
most politically active corporations spent a combined
$5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign
contributions. A year-long analysis by the Sunlight
Foundation suggests, however, that what they gave pales
compared to what those same corporations got: $4.4
trillion in federal business and
support"[1]https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17
/fixed-fortunes-big...
forkLding - 3 hours ago
how so? I don't understand where you are drawing the parallels
stretchwithme - 3 hours ago
Yeah, free speech doesn't mean others have to pay to say
something they don't like. It means you can say it. And at your
own expense.
quadrangle - 1 hours ago
No, free speech means speech without consequences. And it
doesn't exist in the extreme absolute version. The more
consequences of speech, the less free it is.The 1st amendment
protects speech from government consequences, even though it
isn't absolute. Consequences in the private market still reduce
the freedom of speech even though they have nothing to do with
the Constitution.And if someone finds their freedom reduced,
they can perfectly reasonably complain about it. And you can
rationally talk about how the reduction was fair or that it
wasn't. You can't rationally deny the reduction.EDIT: I barely
ever do this sort of edit, but c'mon. People downvoted this?
It's like some people are opposed to plain truth. Nothing above
is remotely questionable.
TAForObvReasons - 3 hours ago
In this case, New America is a non-profit:> New America is a
501(c)(3) non-profit organization and all donations are tax
deductible.- https://www.newamerica.org/our-funding/So while
they do receive funding from Google, if Google is permitted to
control the discourse in this way we should ask if New America
deserves non-profit status and whether Google should be able to
deduct monies spent on the entity.
stretchwithme - 3 hours ago
And what about other people that give to non-profits? Should
they also be made to continue giving even if they no longer
agree with what the non-profit is doing?
Spivak - 2 hours ago
They wouldn't be made to continue. But if it's clear that
the actions of a given non-profit are really for the
financial benefit of their 'donors' then then they should
be taxed like any other marketing division.
hpcjoe - 2 hours ago
... no ... the essence of free speech is free association
and dissociation with people, ideas, and narratives. There
should be no compulsion or "made to continue giving" if
they disagree.In this aspect, google would be well within
its rights to discontinue funding speech it no longer
agreed with. Its within its rights to attempt to influence
a narrative.But there are optics associated with this, and
people who may be (rightfully or wrongfully) suspicious of
its motives, who would take such actions as confirmation of
their own pet theories.Without reflecting on how common a
pattern this is, if this is what happened, then it
happened. And its not wrong for google to ask for tighter
conformity to its preferred narrative. Its not wrong for
the think tank to offer this tighter conformity.It just
looks ... well ... bad.Google acting in their own self
interest is rational. Doesn't mean its "good" or "bad" in
a wider context, but it is rational.
arca_vorago - 3 hours ago
Nobody makes anyone give money to a nonprofit...
Goladus - 2 hours ago
No, but of course that's not what happened. They said shut
down the open markets division or we'll pull funding. And
probably there was something like "oh yeah and when you're
looking at what our lost patronage does to your bottom
line, remember that I also play golf with 4-5 of your other
patrons so think very carefully"
dcole2929 - 3 hours ago
No one can or should be able to force you to donate your
money to any endeavor. That said it's fair to question
whether an organization that is currently enjoying a tax
free exemption on the basis of being a independent non
profit should continue to enjoy that status after proving
they are not in fact independent.It's likewise fair to
question whether any person donating to that organization
deserves to write off their donations if the receiving
organization acts more like a pr division of the giver.My
personal opinion is that if an organization receives more
than 50% of it's funding from one source, it's no longer
independent and shouldn't be treated as such
[deleted]
cakeface - 3 hours ago
All non profits have a purpose and companies as well as
individuals support the non profit expressly because they
have a purpose. If a company or individual thinks that a non
profit is acting against that purpose then they can
communicate that to the group or stop funding it. This does
not make the organization a "for profit" group. It is a
disagreement over the purpose of the organization and how
they work to achieve that purpose.
Goladus - 2 hours ago
New America is a think tank and civic enterprise committed
to renewing American politics, prosperity, and purpose in
the Digital Age. We generate big ideas, bridge the gap
between technology and policy, and curate broad public
conversation. Structurally, we combine the best of a policy
research institute, technology laboratory, public forum,
media platform, and a venture capital fund for ideas. We
are a distinctive community of thinkers, writers,
researchers, technologists, and community activists who
believe deeply in the possibility of American renewal.Very
hard to argue against free speech with a mission statement
focused on ideas, research, and "public conversation"For
fun, the Open Markets division in particular:The Open
Markets program at New America was founded to protect
liberty and democracy in America from extreme
concentrations of economic and political power. We do so by
researching and reporting on the political and economic
dangers posed by monopolization?in the United States and in
the international system?and identifying ways to
reestablish America?s political economy on a more fair,
secure, and stable footing.Google gave money to a non-
profit with an anti-monopoly division and then got mad when
the anti-monopoly division praised anti-monopoly
legislation that just happened to hurt Google.
[deleted]
rhizome - 3 hours ago
Barry Lynn (and the organization) was doing the work he was hired
to do.
arctux - 3 hours ago
Notably, he worked for the nominally-independent New America's
Open Markets program, not for Google.
tedunangst - 3 hours ago
Businesses large and small can make business decisions. But only
especially large businesses can go around making "offers you
can't refuse" to every think tank in order to get what they want.
kevin_b_er - 3 hours ago
> some states have at-will employmentAll states except Montana at
0.32% of the population. 99.68% of the population of the US are
in at-will employment states. Most everyone is under at-will.The
negative consequence is that if you cannot have a meaningful
income to survive while exercising your rights, do you have a
right to begin with?
burnte - 3 hours ago
This. The Neonazis being fired are saying the same thing, but the
freedom of speech is a freedom TO speak, not a freedom FROM
consequence.
tarboreus - 3 hours ago
It's certainly a freedom from consequence if the consequence
would normally be a reprisal by government.
oh_sigh - 3 hours ago
What neonazis have been fired from Google?
thomastjeffery - 3 hours ago
That is the crux of the issue with Google being a monopoly.If you
work for a company, and speak out against that company, there is
no reason for that company to be forced to keep you. They can
kick you out, and if you are fired simply over disagreement, you
can find another company. The very availability of that option is
how you are free to speak against your corporation. You need not
stay there.If that company is a monopoly, however, you are left
without that option, and therefore left without the liberty to
speak freely against that company. You can still speak out
against them, and get fired like before, but then you are left
with no avenue of employment afterward; and since you are thus
aware, you likely won't be speaking out after all.
logfromblammo - 1 hours ago
BL: I wrote a paper on the dangers of corporate monopolies and
how they have a dangerous ability to silence their critics,
stifle civil liberties, and control public discourse.ES: Google
is a near-monopoly. One might view your paper as criticism--
criticism that I might like to silence.BL: Oh, sh-ES: You're
fired! Also, I'll have my guys tweak the ranking algorithm a
bit. Enjoy finding yourself on page 1000 of the search results
for "Barry Lynn".BL: (squeak)ES: [impression of Agent Smith
from The Matrix] What good is a phone call when you cannot...
speak? Bwahahahaha!
riku_iki - 3 hours ago
> I mean, some states have at-will employment where they can just
fire you for any reason they want.As someone pointed in previous
similar topic, this reason can't be illegal, and potentially this
threatens his constitutional free-speech rights in this case.>
I'm sure there's some clause in their contract that says "if you
speak out against us we have the option of terminating
you."Again, if some contract provision is against constitution,
it is not enforceable.
criddell - 3 hours ago
The free speech amendment stops congress from passing a law
that abridges freedom of speech. A non-disparagement clause in
a private contract doesn't violate the constitution.
DoctorNick - 3 hours ago
He was not an employee of Google. He was employed by a think tank
which was ostensibly supposed to have independence from their
funding sources.
SapphireSun - 3 hours ago
There's the con. There is no independence from funding sources
unless you have so many that you can ignore losing one. Now if
one were to turn that critical lens to the rest of the
advertising funded media...
criley2 - 3 hours ago
>> Big businesses can threaten free speech when they accumulate
too much power. For Google, that moment has come.I agree, Google
has enabled far more political free speech than it has
suppressed.On the often-misunderstood idea of freedom of all
speech, Google certainly has the right to suppress the speech of
its employees in certain scenarios.That has nothing to do with
freedom of political speech, the storied american ideal.In this
case, this man learned a very important lesson most of us should
learn much younger than him:freedom to speak does not include
freedom from repercussions(AKA don't bite the hand that feeds if
you want to be fed, real basic stuff here)Only political speech
is a protected class, and it is only protected from government
intrusion, not private.
SilasX - 3 hours ago
Well, yes and no.The philosophy behind freedom of speech is (to
greatly simplify) "it's so much better for the advancement of
ideas when people can say controversial things without being
afraid of material reprisals."One way to promote the ideal is to
not push legal penalties against those who say such things.
That's the basis of the legal protection of speech, and specific
countries' laws thereon (in the US, the First Amendment).But you
get the same disaster, and failure of the ideal, when non-
governmental actors do it. If everyone fears going into poverty
when they say something controversial, well, we're in the same
crappy-ideas-that-no-one-criticizes dystopia.Hence my frustration
at those who give the lecture about "lol First Amendment is just
for the government" and "lol why should they have to pay you when
they don't like your ideas?" Yes, they're technically correct,
but it's comically missing the point to "stand up for free
speech" but also cheer on the technically-legal ways you can make
someone suffer for disagreeing with you.That doesn't mean we
should force you to keep buying from those whose ideas you don't
like. It does mean we shouldn't be sanguine about orgs using
financial power over someone's livelihood to keep their
(potentially) good ideas from being spoken.
imgabe - 3 hours ago
The immediate problem I see with extending free speech
protection to keeping your job is something like this:Suppose a
company has a disgruntled employee. The employee starts
badmouthing them all over the place. Assume it doesn't rise to
the level of libel or slander, but they're still causing
significant problems. Is the company supposed to be required to
keep employing this person or face a freedom-of-speech lawsuit?
That seems absurd.The fundamental problem here I think is the
assumption that an employer is somehow "responsible" for the
employee's livelihood. Employment is a simple business
transaction. Neither party should be obligated to anything
beyond what they agreed to at the start of the transaction. If
you go buy an apple from a store, are you now responsible for
that store-owner's livelihood from then on? Are you obligated
to keep buying apples there and buying enough to provide the
storeowner a living wage?If someone is living so far outside
their means that a temporary job loss is going to cause them
ruin, that's their fault, not the company's. There's much we
could do in terms of providing a better social safety net as
well, but I think we're best off keeping economic transactions
as purely economic as possible.
thomastjeffery - 3 hours ago
That is why the problem is not corporations' ability to fire
employees, but whether that corporation is a monopoly, i. e.
that employee's only option for employment.For a corporation
with competition, the ability to fire someone over
disagreement is clearly reasonable, since that employee may
prefer work with another corporation in that sector.To
contrast: For a monopoly, the ability to fire someone over
disagreement, and no other merit, is suddenly transformed
into an abuse over free speech. The employee can't speak out
against a monopoly, and expect to find work afterward,
meaning that employee has poignant reason not to speak out in
the first place.
Goladus - 2 hours ago
Also, a corollary: employment monopolies can be established
with blacklists.Refusing to hire someone because they were
placed on a blacklist for protected speech is wrong (and I
believe, illegal). After the Damore incident there were
numerous reports of people within Google openly bragging
about maintaining such blacklists.
Goladus - 2 hours ago
Suppose a company has a disgruntled employee. The employee
starts badmouthing them all over the place. Assume it doesn't
rise to the level of libel or slander, but they're still
causing significant problems. Is the company supposed to be
required to keep employing this person or face a freedom-of-
speech lawsuit? That seems absurd.In this case you document
the incidents. You establish a pattern and attempt to
demonstrate intent or reckless disregard with regards to the
impact of speech on the company and its business, in
quantifiable terms if possible. You appeal to previously
established, legally valid agreements made between the
employer and the employee on what sort of speech restrictions
are expected. And then when you fire the person, you tell
the truth. You explain exactly why the relationship was
terminated, how their exercise of free speech damages the
company, and how they themselves are responsible for it.The
trick is really when it comes to actually proving that an
employee is "causing significant problems" when their actions
cannot actually be classified as libel, slander, or some form
of harassment.The fundamental problem here I think is the
assumption that an employer is somehow "responsible" for the
employee's livelihood. Employment is a simple business
transaction.No, the fundamental assumption is that any actor
has a responsibility to uphold business agreements in an
honest and ethical manner. This includes not using the
threat of termination as leverage to suppress exercise of 1st
amendment rights. That includes making reasonable attempt to
respond to speech with speech before taking action, and ONLY
escalating to disruptive action against the speaker when
there is a clear and compelling reason to do so.I'm all for
at-will employment in principle. But the story doesn't end
there. Just because you "can sometimes be justified firing
someone for things they say" doesn't mean it's always the
right thing to do. You have to look at each situation to
make a reasonable evaluation. In this case, according to
Lynn, Google applied economic pressure to (supposedly
nonpartisan) New America to coerce them into into punishing
Barry Lynn for praising an EU decision that hurt Google.Lynn
was not an employee of Google. Lynn was doing his job, the
way he was supposed to do his job, in a principled manner
which he claims is consistent with how he'd done it for the
past 15 years. He and his division were employed through a
3rd party organization of which Google was simply one funder.
Google, rather than responding to Lynn with a counter
argument or some other speech-oriented response, instead
abused their patron relationship with his employer to punish
him for what he said.Whether or not New America had
"responsibility for the livelihood" of the employees is
entirely beside the point. The point is to address the
accusation of Google engaging in a wholly inappropriate
bullying behavior. It appears they set out with intent
punish someone for valid political expression using a
coercive method (threatening the speaker's employer). That
is the general principle at stake here. Responding to free
speech with coercive action is by default unethical.
mulmen - 3 hours ago
I think your simplification misses an important distinction
which you address later in your comment. The first amendment
protects from reprisals from the government. If we are in a
world where the government suppresses speech we are in a
different kind of dystopia than one where corporations do the
same thing.The solution will be different because the way we
interact with our government is different from the way we
interact with corporations.
SilasX - 37 minutes ago
Out of curiosity, did you read the following paragraphs? I
thought I addressed that pretty thoroughly.
Goladus - 2 hours ago
This is true, but it does mean we have drag people past
thinking about free speech strictly in terms of the 1st
amendment. All too often people respond to a situation like
the OP with "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from
consequences" and consider the discussion over. Parent
poster has clearly experienced this.See also: Marsh vs.
Alabama. Relates more to platforms like Youtube and Twitter
but is still
relevant.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._AlabamaMarsh
v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the
United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state
trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the
distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk,
notwithstanding the fact that the sidewalk where the
distribution was taking place was part of a privately owned
company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of
the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
pfisch - 3 hours ago
This is sort of ridiculous. You don't have to keep someone on
your payroll who is actively speaking out about white
supremacy.There should be social consequences for your speech,
just not legal ones.
AlgorithmicTime - 3 hours ago
Social censorship of speech is nearly as dangerous as
government censorship of speech. We need to have a robust
norm of not trying to silence people for dissenting
viewpoints
pfisch - 1 hours ago
How am I getting downvotes for not wanting to help fund white
supremacy? Who are the readers of this site?
balls187 - 3 hours ago
He criticized a "corporation" one that gets criticized on HN
somewhat often.As for At-Will states, you can't fire someone for
any reason, because there are employment protection laws. And, as
anyone who has worked in positions of authority can attest, even
if you have to fire someone, you build up enough evidence so that
when you are sued, you can back up your claims.
JBlue42 - 3 hours ago
Isn't that what at-will employment is? From my last employer's
handbook:Employment at the Company is at will. The policy of
at-will employment means that employment with the Company, is
voluntarily entered into, and you are free to resign at will at
any time, with or without notice or cause.The policy also means
that the Company may terminate your employment at will at any
time, with or without notice or cause.This right to terminate
employment with or without notice or cause also applies, of
course, to decisions regarding other terms of employment,
including but not limited to demotion, promotion, transfer,
compensation, benefits, duties, and location of work. No
representative of the Company, other than one of the
Principals, has the authority to enter into any agreement for
employment for a specified duration or to make any agreement
contrary to foregoing. Any such agreement must be by individual
agreement, in writing and signed by you and one of the
Principals. Accordingly, neither this manual nor any policy
contained in this manual is intended to imply continued
employment or otherwise limit in any way the policy of at-will
employment. Nor does this manual, in describing Company
policies or procedures, commit the Company, to follow any
particular procedure in the course of imposing discipline,
changing the terms or conditions of employment, or terminating
balls187 - 3 hours ago
> Isn't that what at-will employment is?Yes, at anytime, and
with our without reason. However, doing so can open you up to
a lawsuit for wrongful termination.You can't be fired because
of sex (including orientation and pregnancy), race, religion,
disability, age, or nation of origin.Retaliation, refusal to
commit a crime, and failure to follow your companies own
termination process, are also grounds for wrongful
termination claims.Typically, HR departments have a firing
manager start building a paper trail of evidence, usually by
way of a PiP.
JBlue42 - 22 minutes ago
Regardless, the company still wields all the power.
Whereas, if you're hoping to leave on good terms, employees
are still expected to put in two weeks (or at least one
week's) notice they can still let you go that day.Also, I
know further in this handbook I have, that they describe
that there are procedures for "building the case" as you
say but then in the same paragraph it basically says: "We
don't actually have to do this".Not to mention the whole
back half of the packet deals with arbitration, which is
how I assume this would be dealt w/ in court.A fired
employee doesn't have the time and probably access to the
lawyers to even get this started not to mention have a hope
of winning.Hell, at this company, I came in on time, fixed
three issues within my first hour, then was laid off due to
"cultural fit" despite two year's of stellar performance
reviews and no formal reprimands or complaints to HR.
balls187 - 8 minutes ago
AFAIK, no one can take away your legal right to bring
about a suit.If your company has an arbitration clause,
it's usually as part of an employee agreement that
specifies in-lieu of suing them, you agree to an
arbitration instead.I've turned down a job because I
refused to give up my right to sue.As to your case, just
sue them and claim cultural fit was used to discriminate
against you because of your race/gender/age.
[deleted]
joeyo - 3 hours ago
Except Lynn wasn't a Google employee, so the at-will employment
analysis doesn't apply.
WithHighProb - 3 hours ago
Skimming over the comments, it seems many people defines "free
speech" as if they lived in utopia
ProAm - 3 hours ago
This is no different than criticizing your employer, don't be
surprised when they fire you for that.
jhawk28 - 3 hours ago
Criticizing your employer is considered protected speech in the
US.Edit: I stand corrected. "Some" forums of criticizing your
employer may be considered protected. You may need a lawsuit to
enforce that protection....
pwthornton - 3 hours ago
It's not. You can't just criticize your employer with
impunity.Only a very narrowly tailored set of criticisms
related to whistleblowing, labor practices and a few other
areas are protected.
tj-teej - 3 hours ago
? What makes you say that. The 1st Amendment only states that
the Govt cannot do anything to hinder free speech.
sageikosa - 3 hours ago
Protected in that you cannot be prosecuted for it perhaps.
flatline - 3 hours ago
Think tanks are a little different. It's closer to a professor
getting fired for pursuing research that casts a bad light on a
corporate donor to the school. What's the most troubling to me is
not that this individual was fired, but his entire line of
inquiry was ejected by Google.
tedunangst - 3 hours ago
One of the perks of university is there's hopefully a little
more distance between admin and fund raising and research, plus
tenure, diverse funding, etc. to counteract exactly this
scenario.
ProAm - 3 hours ago
Think tanks have always been biased research institutions used
to shape policy. When you don't play ball for the entity
funding the team be prepared to not play for that team anymore.
mquander - 3 hours ago
Whether or not it's surprising is immaterial to whether or not
it's good.
ProAm - 3 hours ago
It's going to be a long list if we discuss all the things
Google does as 'good' or 'bad'.
throw2016 - 3 hours ago
This is more proof if needed of how damaging most think tanks are
to public discourse and the incestuous relationships that prop them
up.They are very much part of the regulatory capture framework in
operation around power centres. It seems as easy as adopting highly
deceptive orwellian sounding names and shamelessly pushing agendas
while pretending to be independent.Consumers and citizens end up
paying for all this subterfuge in increased end user costs and are
basically paying for organized attempts to mislead them.
[deleted]
drpgq - 3 hours ago
Maybe he can get together with Damore and commiserate.
hobo_mark - 3 hours ago
From the title I had initially assumed it was about the infamous
memo. For anybody else who might get the same impression: it's a
different story and it's actually worth reading.
stretchwithme - 3 hours ago
If it's a valid criticism of a significant issue, why would it be
necessary for the target of a criticism to fund it? Surely there
would enough injured parties who have a reason to fund it.
mulmen - 3 hours ago
What if the significant issue is that the injured parties do not
have the resources to speak? The validity of criticism should
not be linked to economic power of the injured.
stretchwithme - 3 hours ago
Anyone can voice a criticism. And ask others to assist.Ask.
Not compel. You no longer have freedom of speech if you are
forced to promote ideas you don't believe in.
mulmen - 3 hours ago
I agree that the target of criticism should not be required
to fund that speech and that the freedom of speech also
applies to the right to not speak.My comment deals with your
second sentence.> Surely there would enough injured parties
who have a reason to fund it.You suggest that criticism is
valid only if the injured have the economic power to speak.
This is a dangerous way to determine validity because it
forms a feedback loop where those with economic power
suppress the speech of those without.
[deleted]
finkin1 - 3 hours ago
> Corporations are geared to pursue their interests, and criticism
is not in their best interest.Obviously we should condemn this
behavior, but I can't say I'm surprised. It's good to see such a
clear example of Google being unable to resist exerting its power
to protect itself from criticism, but I can't help but imagine all
of the instances of this that will never see the light of day. The
reality is that our world is filled with greed and corruption and
that's not going to change any time soon.
frogpelt - 1 hours ago
Is it automatically greed and corruption for Google to disagree
and threaten to stop funding?
busterarm - 3 hours ago
It's not even about them being unable to resist. Schmidt is on
record saying that he feels that their success is a function
of/reward for doing what's morally correct and that the company
should use its power to push their morality/ideology (and that
the market will reward them if they're right or won't if they
aren't).Thinking about this keeps me up at night.
mullingitover - 3 hours ago
"I and the entire Open Markets team were let go because it?s not in
Google?s interest to finance criticism of its business
model."Coming soon: Washington Post's scathing takedown of Amazon's
business model.
dsp1234 - 3 hours ago
Like this one[0]?[0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business
/is-amazon-getting-to...
mulmen - 3 hours ago
Is the Washington Post a think tank now? Does Amazon own the
Washington Post?
r00fus - 3 hours ago
Jeff Bezos owns the WaPo now.
mulmen - 3 hours ago
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are not the same person. This is an
important distinction.
jbenz - 2 hours ago
The number one person in power at Amazon = the number one
person in power at the Washington Post.
mulmen - 1 hours ago
Yes, Jeff Bezos. The implication that Bezos abuses his
position to favor one organization over the other has no
clear basis in fact. It is also not relevant to the
story about Google taking action in Google's favor.
tryingagainbro - 2 hours ago
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are not the same person. This is an
important distinction.No doubt you can point to some Amazon
PR to prove it. In reality, they're one and Bezos has done
whatever he wanted till now (how many years was AMZN losing
money to expand???).You can also say "Here's an WP article
slamming Amazon," but maybe the old WP would have written 5
such articles. I have no doubt that self-censorship goes on
at WP just as it went with NBC /GE /Comcast and so on. They
know who owns the paper and if someone has to remind them,
it will be done.Of course, you can be independent and
think, but....
mulmen - 1 hours ago
You can make up whatever reality you want. Suggesting
Bezos abuses his influence at WaPo to benefit Amazon has
nothing to do with Google deciding to stop doing business
with an organization that began working against Google's
interest.
vesinisa - 2 hours ago
Yes, and neither are Eric Schmidt and Google.
mulmen - 1 hours ago
The difference being Eric Schmidt and Google took an
action. Eric Schmidt and some other business he owns did
not.The action was against an organization that Google
was doing business with because the arrangement no longer
made sense for Google. A think tank and a newspaper are
not the same thing. There is no expectation of integrity
from a think tank.The original comparison suggests Amazon
is abusing influence to control the narrative at WaPo in
the absence of any evidence of such abuse.
jaggederest - 3 hours ago
They've actually been critical multiple times over the last
little while about Amazon and Amazon's model, particularly along
working conditions at warehouses. I think editorial independence
is still relatively strong at wapo.Interestingly enough New
America also receives significant funding from Amazon, I wonder
if they will get colored by the brush of politically expedient
think tank funding as well.
bspringstead - 2 hours ago
If its a reasonable thought and opinion it shouldn't be shot down
as something rude. it's your choice to say what you want
arca_vorago - 2 hours ago
The other angle about Google (and others like Facebook) is the
hidden and incestious relationship it has with certain government
subfactions. Inqtel always comes up, but that's just the surface of
a likely much deeper well. With that in mind, moves like this have
a much more sinister tint.
zellyn - 3 hours ago
Are think tanks legally required to be impartial? Are they
generally expected to be impartial?I was under the impression that
funding a "Think Tank" was a way to funnel money into research,
paper-writing, policy promulgation, etc. that favored your
position. Are they something else?
[deleted]
CorvusCrypto - 3 hours ago
I'd imagine that funding and investments are a way to pressure
research to favor your stance as a company. While think tanks can
operate under their own rules, as an investor you'd probably not
want to spend more money if the result isn't helping you in some
way.Phrased a different way I think technically it's not a
requirement to follow your investors' goals, but it's pretty much
a necessity so your hands are tied.
yahyaheee - 2 hours ago
Power always collects, while I disagree with this action from an
idealist standpoint this is the way the world works currently.
Frankly I would rather have Google grabbing up all the power than
anyone else I can think of. I understand that they will become
exceedingly corrupted, but we need them in charge right now. The
world has serious problems and they are well poised to fix them.
marlokk - 2 hours ago
Of course the powerful are the best poised to fix your problems.
Freedom of speech is the only peaceful and equitable thing we
have to incentivize them to do it though.
TheAdamAndChe - 2 hours ago
My issue with this is that even if Google is currently acting in
the world's best interest(which is arguable with its recent
blatant attempts to shape the direction of our culture), power
eventually changes hands. Someone eventually will control Google
that will exploit that power to the detriment of the country and
the world.
beepboopbeep - 3 hours ago
Only thing a company owes you is what is in your contact and vice
versa. I don't understand what people don't get about this. If you
criticize the government and get thrown in jail, that's a violation
of free speech. But If you complain about your employer then they
can fire you. If you don't like your employer, you can leave.
That's how it works. End of story.The guy is publishing an article
in a major news publication about his experiences during all of
this. His free speech is quite obviously not being suppressed.
thomastjeffery - 2 hours ago
The crux of the issue he is describing is not that his speech
rights are being violated, but that Google has the power to fire
him from a company that is not part of Google. And that Google
used that power in reaction to his speech.> If you don't like
your employer, you can leave. That's how it works. End of
story.And go where? Another similar company, right?While that
isn't what happened in this specific situation, this guy brings
up a valid point about monopolies: If you work for a company, and
that company is a monopoly, you can't just leave, because you
have literally nowhere else to go. Therefore that company has
control over your speech without violating your constitutional
rights.That is one of many reasons we should be concerned about
the centralization of power Google/Alphabet has acquired.> The
guy is publishing an article in a major news publication about
his experiences during all of this. His free speech is quite
obviously not being suppressed.His speech clearly was suppressed.
Just because he found a new outlet for it does not mean anything
to the contrary.
ErikVandeWater - 3 hours ago
> End of story.And he has the right to complain about being
fired. End of story.
sageikosa - 3 hours ago
I can complain about going out in the rain and getting wet.
End of story.
monus - 3 hours ago
What is the point of think tanks then? Just get paid by companies
and do their propaganda but expect people to believe your
thoughts are free because it's a "non-profit"?
EpicEng - 3 hours ago
Well, that's a good question for the think tanks. I imagine
they always want more funding, so they reach out to
corporations, and ultimately find themselves in conflict. I'm
sure they'd argue that, without the corporate money, they
wouldn't exist in the first place. Catch 22.
jotjotzzz - 2 hours ago
Have we ever imposed antitrust laws since the early 2000s
(Microsoft)? These laws have not caught up with the Internet age,
gigantic corporations like Google and Amazon have been expanding
freely spreading quickly, they are too big to fail at this point.
suzzer99 - 3 hours ago
That corporate and individually funded think tanks have any impact
on actual policy is troubling all by itself. It's just a fancy way
of lobbying.
ABCLAW - 3 hours ago
Heck of a lot of Dog wagging here over whether or not Google could
legally apply the pressure they did.The answer is yes, they could.
Great.The issue isn't whether or not they could. It's whether or
not they should be in a position to do so - is the concentration of
power required to apply such pressure healthy for society as a
whole?It is worth noting that at the time of me making this
comment, this is not a single point arguing directly that such
concentration is healthy or beneficial.
icebraining - 2 hours ago
But is the concentration of power really at play here? According
to sources, New America got $21M total from Google since '99.
From their funding page, they got at least $16M from other
sources last year alone.Are they really so dependent on Google?
ABCLAW - 2 hours ago
>But is the concentration of power really at play here?Yes.The
executive chairman of the corporation they receive ~%20 of
their revenue from called and told them to get rid of the guy.
The guy was gone in two days. This isn't a grey area. [Edited
revenue figure]
icebraining - 1 hours ago
they receive >%50 of their revenueDo they? What's the source
of that?
ABCLAW - 22 minutes ago
Misread your comment! Oops.I jumped into New America's
filed 990 papers and the number at a first estimate is
around 20%. But I haven't added in any personal donations
by Eric Schmidt. Perhaps more importantly omitted is the
fact that he is the chairman emeritus of the organization.
fauigerzigerk - 2 hours ago
>is the concentration of power required to apply such pressure
healthy for society as a whole?No concentration of power is
required for a corporation to fire someone it effectively
employs.
ABCLAW - 2 hours ago
This is lazy thinking. Trying to smuggle the power into the
concept of 'effective employment' doesn't do much to fix the
issue if you're honest about it.You need power to fire people
you directly employ, let alone researchers at third party
think-tanks.Would google be 'effectively employing' this
researcher if their contribution to New America made up less
than 2% of their revenues rather than over half?
fauigerzigerk - 1 hours ago
Yes you do need power to do what Google has done. But having
the power to control a think-tank of that size does not
require an industry to be nearly as concentrated as online
advertising currently is.[Edit] Just think about how much you
would have to reduce concentration in any industry so that no
corporation is large enough to fund a think-tank and have
someone fired.Even if you did that, corporations with shared
interests could join together to do the same thing one larger
corporation would otherwise have done. It wouldn't be the
first time.
megous - 3 hours ago
It's like some Jewish organization funding Nazis and then being
surprised (and angried!) that [Nazis] bit the hand that fed them.
It's somewhat incomprehensible.Perhaps people assume that Google
funded this org because of the ideas it spread, and not for some
profit motive, or for some outcome. So now it seems it was never
about the ideas. I mean, the left is for anti-monopoly laws,
therefore that something like this might happen should have been
pretty clear.So it's either stupidity on part of Google, or perhaps
they fund such organizations in order to have control over them.
(invisible hand of self-censorship, because money)
frogpelt - 1 hours ago
So, let's consider why Google would fund an anti-monopoly think
tank in the first place. It's so they can wield influence by using
their dollars.It's similar to why rich people pay lobbyists. The
lobbyist can pull strings with legislators that offset the millions
of opinions of less-rich constituents.It makes sense from a purely
business perspective.
Clubber - 3 hours ago
This is the article in a nutshell. Google funds anti-monopoly think
tank. Anti monopoly think tank writer praises the EU for fining
Google for being anti competitive, Schmidt gets guy fired by
threatening to withdraw funding. I know that's just his side of the
story, but it doesn't look great for the think tank or the
Google.If you didn't know it already, think tanks are a euphemism
for propaganda machine.Shortly after my group published a statement
praising the European Union for fining Google for violating
antitrust standards in June of this year, I was contacted by Anne-
Marie Slaughter, the president of New America, who said that Eric
Schmidt, Google?s parent company?s executive chairman, was furious
about the statement. Schmidt, she said, was threatening to pull his
name and substantial funding from New America in retaliation.
clarkevans - 2 hours ago
The bulk of this article is a critique of corporate power. In
particular, Barry Lynn argues that bipartisan deregulation of
monopoly controls have permitted a concentration of corporate
power:How did we drift so far from the founding generation?s deep
fear of massive corporations? In the 1970s and 1980s, an alliance
of economic and legal scholars from the right and left of the
parties ? including Robert Bork and John Kenneth Galbraith ?
combined to overthrow America?s two-century-old antimonopoly
system. ... It?s a dangerous misperception that will continue
to imperil democracy as long as the power of corporations
continues to grow unchecked.
foota - 2 hours ago
I realize you're quoting here, but two century old? Wasn't the
start of US antitrust law at the beginning of the 20th century?
clarkevans - 1 hours ago
The founding of the United States can be seen as a rebellion
against British crony
capitalism.http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution
/tea-acthttps://core.ac.uk/display/76558315 # Monopolies and
the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism
dgacmu - 2 hours ago
A tad bit earlier - the Sherman Antitrust Act was
1890.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
dsacco - 2 hours ago
I see it repeated a lot that think tanks are really propaganda
engines with an intellectual veneer, but can you back that up
with specific examples?I subscribe to the Brookings Papers, Cato
Journal, Chatham House and Council on Foreign Relations. Yes, the
content is political, but discussions of economics and policy are
necessarily political in nature. I think there is a lot in these
publications that is descriptive, not just prescriptive.
Certainly more rigor than you're giving them credit for.If you're
expecting an organization without any bias, that's different. But
your critique sounds as though there is no empiricism involved
whatsoever. I take issue with that, because personally I find
that I learn quite a bit by reading these, and often the value is
in conflicting perspectives. I also think it becomes a little too
easy for people to hear what you're saying and just start
repeating it (as an example, see this thread where multiple
people have piled on to agree with you without any examples
cited).To make a comparison: I also subscribe to the New York
Times and Wall Street Journal, because they have different
implicit (and even explicit!) biases. That doesn't mean there
isn't high quality journalism, it just means that the nature of
information is often biased.
colordrops - 2 hours ago
Think tanks all have agendas driven by their backers.Based on
your interest in think tanks, you appear to be a person that
likes to dig under the surface for more detailed and
comprehensive information, so it seems you should also take it
upon yourself to research your sources and do some critical
thinking on your own. But if you insist, this is a high-level
piece on think tanks as servants of corporate
agendas:https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-
tanks-r...
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Clubber - 2 hours ago
>I see it repeated a lot that think tanks are really propaganda
engines with an intellectual veneer, but can you back that up
with specific examples?You mean other than the article we are
replying to? :)All joking aside, I'm sure all think tanks
aren't shilling with every article, but follow the money. They
are typically founded by, actively solicit and are paid for by
corporate donations and corporations don't typically give money
for nothing.Cato is a libertarian think tank. They have a
specific libertarian slant. The print more articles that
libertarians would like and print fewer articles that
libertarians don't, specifically Koch flavored libertarian-ism.
I mean that's the way it just is. I mean I favor social
libertarian-ism, but for someone to be an objective reader,
they need to know that Cato was formed to serve libertarian
interests.
grasshopperpurp - 1 hours ago
Remember the Koch's 2012 takeover:The Koch brothers have long
supported Cato, which they helped found in Washington in
1977. Recently, however, they have come to consider their
creation politically unreliable. In a meeting with Robert
Levy, chairman of Cato?s board of directors, they expressed
their intention to remake the institute into a party organ
that would aid their effort to unseat President Obama. To do
so, however, they need control of the board. They intend to
get it by suing the widow of William Niskanen, a recently
deceased board member, for control of Niskanen?s
shares.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post
/why-wou...
arcbyte - 1 hours ago
Pointing to Ezra Klein to explain what is happening on the
right is the opposite of "slant-free".
tptacek - 9 minutes ago
He's not "pointing to Ezra Klein to explain"; he's citing
reporting. If some part of it is false, correct it.
gozur88 - 1 hours ago
Not every think tank is the same. I'm sure some of them are
just fronts for various interests, and some are legitimate
groups of people interested in an issue.
Clubber - 1 hours ago
I agree there probably are some good ones that get funding
somehow. But if the general consensus is most/many think
tanks are independent organizations that think about stuff
and publish articles, like authors or philosophers for the
common good, they certainly are not.Also, I would suspect
that the bigger the think tank (read well funded) the better
chance of getting their article republished. I mean if I
started Clubber's think tank about whatever, I doubt I'd get
much traction.
Thrymr - 2 hours ago
We have the equivalent of "think tanks" with real intellectual
rigor, they are called universities. Yes, you can take issue
with the way that university research is funded, etc., but
tenure makes a difference.
matthjensen - 1 hours ago
I direct the Open Source Policy Center at the American
Enterprise Institute. We contribute to open source economic
modeling tools. Check us out. I think we do good work, and I
have never felt as if a donor biased our work -- this is
probably because I state our values and objectives clearly when
we raise money.
yeukhon - 2 hours ago
Not to distract from the main point, but my experience has been
NYT and WST lean towards the left than the right, although WST
is more conversative on the financial side which is obvious.
metaphorm - 2 hours ago
the New York Times is a center-right neoliberal newspaper
with a thin paint of "blue tribe" social issues on top. The
Wall St. Journal is a center-right neoliberal newspaper with
a thin paint of "red tribe" anti-tax paint on top.
briandear - 36 minutes ago
Center right? If center left is international socialism or
the revival of the Soviet Union, then perhaps you?re
correct. Your analysis is would suggest that Obama was
center right, which is patently ridiculous.
DerekL - 2 hours ago
What's ?WST?? Did you mean WSJ (Wall Street Journal)?
walshemj - 2 hours ago
the WST is a left wing paper lol
yeukhon - 2 hours ago
Thanks the "lol", sarcasm.
subroutine - 2 hours ago
I recently wrote a little Python script to scrape the url
from top submissions to Reddit's /r/The_Donald vs.
/r/EnoughTrumpSpam to get an idea of the most conservative-
leaning and liberal-leaning news outlets (e.g. more
specifically which news sites conservative-leaning and
liberal-leaning redditors use to support their respective
narratives). Here are the
results:https://i.redd.it/45ezt3j9hziy.pngEdit: Oh and I
almost forgot (and to bring this full circle) a Googler saw
my post about this and made an interactive
version:https://medium.com/@hoffa/reddit-favorite-sources-
the-most-l...Edit: and to really bring this full circle, this
Googler made an interactive version about
HN:https://medium.com/@hoffa/hacker-news-on-bigquery-now-
with-d...
[deleted]
chasd00 - 2 hours ago
hah that's really cool, can you run it again for August?
subroutine - 2 hours ago
In an edit above, I linked to a version fhoffa from
Google made using data studio; I think that version might
auto update.
nebabyte - 12 minutes ago
>I see it repeated a lot that think tanks are really propaganda
engines with an intellectual veneer, but can you back that up
with specific examples?You'd figure the fact that the only
"thinking" that gets factored into any decision (apart of that
of bureaucrats too worried about their election coffers and
thus easily paid off - oh, I'm sorry, "donated to") is
privately paid is damning enough...
tunesmith - 50 minutes ago
I think you can roughly split this into two questions:1) Is the
organization receiving funding to focus on analyzing a certain
area of policy? Here, you can argue that the organization has
an agenda that is driven by its backers, but I don't think it's
sufficient to call it propaganda, because by that definition,
any paid effort to focus on any particular area is
propaganda.2) Is the organization seeking to highlight positive
evidence while seeking to squelch negative evidence? That's
where it more becomes about propaganda.
peterwwillis - 2 hours ago
Think tanks were born as ways for monarchs to research and
organize legal arguments against Church doctrine. They have
since expanded to cover a broad range of subjects, but the
central point of a think tank is to get a bunch of smart people
together to formalize a particular opinion and support it with
arguments/research.Most often, these are funded by a particular
group, for a particular agenda. This is the definition of
propaganda.
dredmorbius - 1 hours ago
Citation requested.
foota - 2 hours ago
I don't see how this is incompatible with the parent's
remarks.
peterwwillis - 2 hours ago
The disconnect is probably with confusion or distaste over
the word 'propaganda'. It has a negative connotation, but
'propaganda' means "non-objective information used
primarily to influence an audience or further an agenda",
which is what think tanks produce.
arcbyte - 1 hours ago
I think many think-tanks would take issue with "non-
objective". Certainly the think tanks themselves
subjectively examine only certain issues, but they would
like to believe their examinations are as objective as
possible.The difference being that while I may only ever
study the stars and refuse to study plants, my
examinations of the stars are still objective, even
though the area of my examinations are not comprehensive.
[deleted]
jasonwatkinspdx - 1 hours ago
Cato was specifically founded to advance libertarian views.
They say so explicitly. They tolerate some open debate and have
some intellectual honesty about it, but don't expect them to
continue to fund or advance projects counter to libertarian
concepts.Brookings are pretty dang centrist, and I think there
was actually a formal study on this point.Anyhow, the point I'm
making is that think tanks vary in how overtly political they
are, but some like Cato and Heritage are very ideologically
driven, and others like Brookings more reflect the selection
bias of the status quo.
dragonwriter - 1 hours ago
> I subscribe to the Brookings Papers, Cato Journal, Chatham
House and Council on Foreign Relations. Yes, the content is
political, but discussions of economics and policy are
necessarily political in nature.There is a difference between
political subject matter and a clear ideological bias that
makes it so if you know the subject and the name of the think
tank producing a work, you can predict the general thrust
fairly reliably with no other information (or, similarly, where
you can identify someone's membership in both a major party and
a faction within that party by the think tank?s they are
inclined to cite.)Many major think tanks are ideological in
this way.
omginternets - 1 hours ago
>Many major think tanks are ideological in this way.That's
not at all the same statement as "think tanks are a euphemism
for propaganda machine".The goalpost has shifted.
Clubber - 1 hours ago
I don't believe so. Ideological propaganda is still
propaganda.
asdffdsa321 - 1 hours ago
Yeah it is; when you are ideological, you put out pieces
that subscribe to said ideology and ignore
evidence/observations that support other ideologies or
contradict your own. This is the same as propaganda which,
instead of putting out pieces raised from an objective
perspective, you only publish pieces that support a
specific ideology.
jartelt - 1 hours ago
The book Dark Money by Jane Mayer tells much of the backstory
of how many of these think tanks got started. Most of them
were funded by rich folks, mostly far right or libertarian
(e.g. Kochs brothers), for one reason: to make the rich folks'
far right, libertarian views seem moderate and mainstream. The
idea was to sponsor a think tank that looked moderate and
unbiased, but then to fill it up handpicked people who were
basically paid to try to "prove" that the Koch brothers ideas
are good. Of course both sides do this now, but the
libertarian and far right folks have done it the best.
briandear - 41 minutes ago
And Soros funded groups are different? Come on now. There are
plenty of think tanks that are supported by anti-capitalist
interests as well.It feels to me like ?Koch Brothers? is some
kind of socialist dog whistle to rile people up. It?s like
mentioning Rush Limbaugh: people get riled up over just the
name, but it?s highly likely most people have never heard his
show ? just cherry picked, out of context quotes that are
like red-meat to the starving tigers of left wing interest
groups.To be fair, the right has their dog whistles too.
Mention Nancy Pelosi or George Soros and the right loses
their mind as well. Acting like think tanks are some sort of
capitalist conspiracy is just ridiculous.
tptacek - 12 minutes ago
The comment you replied to wasn't great, but you took what
was worst about it and dialed it up to 11.
AndrewKemendo - 2 hours ago
It's more about what they don't publish or research than what
they do. Very few of those publications have ever published
staunchly anti-corporate articles.It's all good to argue some
partisan political stuff, or things around the edges, but god
help you if you start publishing anti-corporate articles.
Bartweiss - 2 hours ago
An interesting point: it's not at all clear to me that Schmidt
actually made any statement about funding.This says "Schmidt, she
said, was threatening to pull his name and substantial funding
from New America in retaliation", but previous articles have said
that Schmidt simply mentioned his displeasure and Slaughter took
care of the rest.I'm not exonerating Google here regardless;
calling the head of a think tank (as opposed to, say, the essay
writer) to express displeasure is obviously a display of power.
But it's interesting as a taste of how authoritarian behavior
works.Schmidt couldn't have ordered the article spiked, and he
would have looked terrible if he expressly said "I'm pulling
funding if you criticize Google". So instead, he calls and says
"I'm unhappy about this article". And Slaughter, not being an
idiot, recognizes that she got the call for a reason and needs to
act. If she hadn't been so blunt about her internal message,
everyone could have quietly insisted the firing was "for other
reasons" and left the whole point unproved.In one sense, the news
story here is that an explicit message was sent. A sensible
person ought to expect that soft power and unstated implications
cause similar consequences every day.
ehsankia - 1 hours ago
Also, is Google itself funding New America, or is Eric using
his own funds? I think there's a pretty big different, and
making it all about Google just because Eric happens to work at
Google seems unfair.People are free to fund and support any
cause they want in their own time with their own money. Yes,
the person also happens to like Google a lot and doesn't want
to see Google hurt, but I don't think Google should be held
responsible for his personal actions.
Clubber - 2 hours ago
>Schmidt couldn't have ordered the article spikedThe comment
from the writer happened, then Schmidt complained. I don't
think the writer asked Schmidt his opinion before he gave his
comment.In other words, Schmidt's actions were a result of the
writer's comments, after the fact.
1024core - 16 minutes ago
Schmidt, she said, was threatening to pull his name...Could this
be the problem? It would look ugly if someone in an organization
bearing Schmidt's name actually praised actions detrimental to
Schmidt's employer.
yuhong - 1 minutes ago
I wonder if the other founders of Google got involved.
rayiner - 2 hours ago
One of my favorite plot lines is where someone is an unexpected
ally but then circumstances and conflicts of interest cause the
alliance to become untenable. E.g. the movie "The Siege," General
William Deveraux (Bruce Willis) reassures the protagonists, after
a terrorist scare, that he's a "card-carrying member of the
ACLU." But eventually, he's rounding U.S. citizens up into
camps.Big companies' alliances with social justice types strikes
me as similar. It's tenable, to a point.
dmix - 1 hours ago
> where someone is an unexpected ally but then circumstances
and conflicts of interest cause the alliance to become
untenable.It's not always unexpected as it is non-obvious. As
the OP said:>> think tanks are a euphemism for propaganda
machine.This is basically the reality that's being masked in
this article: the Think Tank was never hired to tell the truth.
Maybe find the truth, but it's certainly not Google's primary
interest for them to publicly finance the promotion of an
inconvenient truth. Which as far as I'm concerned makes
business sense. You can't have your cake and eat it too as an
activist (nor does it mean the activist is automatically right
because they spoke out against the interests of their
financiers either).Similar to how Google and Apple only make
token efforts at 'securing' their messaging platforms and
operating systems against surveillance - to the point where
business interests don't align. Any business output is largely
a product of competing interests, hidden or otherwise.Which is
why voluntary donations (which includes personal time, such as
open source) are so critical to tip these scales towards the
general public's interest - particularly when it comes to
things that also don't align with the interests of government
agencies (see: surveillance) or the interests of mega-
corporations/special interest groups with political
pull.Depending on government or corporate programs alone is
insufficient IMO, and it's unfortunate that this third option
is typically treated as an afterthought in our culture. We tend
to treat time/resources as merely a dynamic between personal
benefit and our maximum capacity for taxation, where donations
are merely a luxury of the wealthy and/or the compassionate
non-industrious types.
CamperBob2 - 2 hours ago
Hell of an underrated movie. If you liked The Siege but
haven't seen Unthinkable, give that one a watch as well.
noir_lord - 3 hours ago
> think tanks are a euphemism for propaganda machine.Yep and they
go back in one form or another centuries possibly millenia, right
back to when kings used to pay people to justify why they owed
less money to the catholic church.
kazinator - 2 hours ago
When Google funds an anti-monopoly think tank, it should be clear
to everyone working there that it's an anti-non-Google-monopoly
think tank that is really about how to prevent other
organizations form gaining monopolistic footholds in any areas
that Google might be interested in, and how to skirt any laws and
regulations which block Google from doing same.
hedgedoops2 - 1 hours ago
> think tanks are a euphemism for propaganda machineWhile I tend
to agree, it's interesting that this think tank employee seems to
have believed that 'think tank' means something closer to
'independent private research institute' or 'university
department' than to 'paid propagandists, for moneyed special
interests, kept on a leash by their masters'.What did he think
his group was? Maybe not a 'think tank'?Are there any 'think
tanks' that might be called 'independent'? Any 'think tanks'
that might be said not to be 'propagandists'? 'Good' think
tanks?I guess it's tricky to define, when merely being super
dogmatic can already ensure that you'll be loyal to whatever
special interests happen to benefit from your particular brand of
dogmatism. So no direct control/intervention is needed.ACLU or
EFF are also dogmatic in a way, and they're activist
organizations, they exist to improve the world according to some
ideology (civil liberties, free software).I guess the difference
between 'think tank' and 'research institute' is that the latter
is more interested in advancing science, than in saving the
world.Among the 'think tanks' you can then, differentiate between
those that serve (through control or dogmatism) the less powerful
(EFF?) vs those that serve the more powerful (Kochs, arguably
Cato, AEI).I guess a better, orthogonal way you can
differentiate, is: does the organization end up adding or
detracting from the ideal of educated public discourse? Are their
arguments manipulative, or do they serve, in the end, to educate?
(This is about effect, not intent, or bias.)You can ask about
intent too, I guess. Do they presume ideas are at "war" or do
they presume that ideas tend to combine to get closer to the
truth?A highly biased, paid-for group can still be useful to
discourse, either it refrains from demagogic manipulation (it
'plays fair' so to speak), or its ideology is so weird and
fringe, rather than hegemonic, that it adds alot of new stuff to
discourse.I'm sure there are other ways of dividing up the space
of highly biased schools of thought.The ancient philosophical
schools like the Pythagoreans were probably a species of think
tank. Although they likely weren't 'propagandists'. Although they
drowned the guy who came up with the irrational numbers. It's
confusing.What we should avoid is trying to divide them just by
"left" vs "right". That's just dumb.What's also kind of dangerous
is falling into the trap of saying, everything is propaganda. The
university is a propaganda machine, for the left, haha. That's
moldbuggery. I think Voltaire would get cramps when being made to
deal with mr Moldbug, I'll leave it at that.
[deleted]
dmlorenzetti - 2 hours ago
think tanks are a euphemism for propaganda machineI call them
"thought tanks" exactly because all the thinking has been done
well before any particular question gets asked.
kazinator - 1 hours ago
Seriously though, the agenda behind a think tank may be a
thought-out given. But there can be plenty of conniving left
for the think tank related to carrying it out.Obviously, this
guy wasn't fit for a think tank, if he couldn't rub two brain
cells together to learn the adage "don't bite the hand that
feeds you".Or maybe he is meta-clever; no publicity is bad
publicity. Get fired from a Google funded think tank for anti-
Google thoughts and come out smelling like some kind of hero.
planteen - 2 hours ago
I like that. So true. It usually seems the conclusion is also
decided before much thinking goes on as well.
kazinator - 1 hours ago
The past tense form (and also past participle) of to think is
glaringly ambiguous against the noun thought, suggesting that
thought might be going on.I humbly suggest the alternative
thunk tank.The bad grammar eliminates suspicions of thought and
as a bonus, it rhymes with drunk tank."I thinked and thinked
real hard and real long till I couldn' think a nuthin' I ain't
already thunk. So I then I passed on the remainin' reckonin' on
to the fine folks in the thunk tank."
eighthnate - 42 minutes ago
> If you didn't know it already, think tanks are a euphemism for
propaganda machine.Exactly, the wealthy and corporations fund
think tanks to support their interests, not for ideals. Think
tanks don't exist for truth/objectivity. They exist to push an
agenda.No matter how good this guy's intentions were, coming out
against google's interests is a sure fire way of getting
fired.Not only that, his career at any google or google
affiliated/funded institutions are pretty much over.
majormajor - 2 minutes ago
I've never looked into this much, how does peer review at a think
tank work?Is your piece going to get reviewed by people who might
be inclined to agree with you already? By people who might not
share your views? How easy is it to "overlook" a study which has
contradictory findings to your own, or misinterpret a stat in a
way favorable to "your side" (whether intentionally or not)?
bspringstead - 2 hours ago
I used to buy video games at a Gamestop next to my neighborhood
supermarket. At one point, they had an employee that seemed to love
to make unnecessary negative comments about my taste in games. It's
a manager's prerogative to fire the employee for providing a bad
customer experience, just like it was mine to just get my games
somewhere else. Ultimately donors are think tank customers, and
this is all perfectly fine: the world where I am forced to go to
the same store, or a Gamestop manager has to tolerate an employee
that tries to deter people from buying non-Microsoft products, is
probably worse than one where someone on a think tank has to
measure what they say. There's learnings to had here though:
The case of a think tank relying on very few donors is no different
than a B2B startup that relies on a single enterprise company: You
have a tremendous risk, the funding can disappear at any time, and
for any reason. Anything other than diversification puts you at
risk, and it's not really the customer's fault if you put yourself
in a very weak position. This also affects far bigger fish,
like media companies and even legislators. And that's why we should
have care when it comes to both media consolidation, or mechanisms
where very few people can have a very big influence on the outcome
of an election. But it's not as if we live in a world where the
only way to have a think tank that produces policy proposals is to
clear everything with Google.
euyyn - 2 hours ago
Without the weird formatting:> I used to buy video games at a
Gamestop next to my neighborhood supermarket. At one point, they
had an employee that seemed to love to make unnecessary negative
comments about my taste in games. It's a manager's prerogative to
fire the employee for providing a bad customer experience, just
like it was mine to just get my games somewhere else. Ultimately
donors are think tank customers, and this is all perfectly fine:
the world where I am forced to go to the same store, or a
Gamestop manager has to tolerate an employee that tries to deter
people from buying non-Microsoft products, is probably worse than
one where someone on a think tank has to measure what they say.>
There's learnings to had here though: The case of a think tank
relying on very few donors is no different than a B2B startup
that relies on a single enterprise company: You have a tremendous
risk, the funding can disappear at any time, and for any reason.
Anything other than diversification puts you at risk, and it's
not really the customer's fault if you put yourself in a very
weak position.> This also affects far bigger fish, like media
companies and even legislators. And that's why we should have
care when it comes to both media consolidation, or mechanisms
where very few people can have a very big influence on the
outcome of an election. But it's not as if we live in a world
where the only way to have a think tank that produces policy
proposals is to clear everything with Google.
balls187 - 3 hours ago
This feels less about Google, and more that Eric Schmidt is a
petty, little man.
oh_sigh - 3 hours ago
Yes, petty in the same way that uou are pretty when yoi fired the
painter you hired to paint your house when he starts to replace
your roof.
balls187 - 3 hours ago
That comparison doesn't make any sense.Eric Schmidt didn't hire
Barry Lynn. New America did.Perhaps a better analogy: The same
way I would be petty, if I fired a painter I hired, because he
showed up with wearing a Colin Kaepnernick Jersey and my
neighbor the police officer, who lets me borrow his lawnmower,
was furious.
oh_sigh - 2 hours ago
Still doesn't seem petty. You have a long standing
relationship with your neighbor, and care about him. You
don't have much of a relationship with the painter.
frgtpsswrdlame - 3 hours ago
One of the aspects of this I'm most interested in is when Google
started donating to New America. It seems obvious to me that Google
is giving money to political organizations in exchange for
influence and that both parties here share blame. But if Google
started giving money to New America and Eric Schmidt joined the
board knowing that New America was funding an anti-monopoly group
then I think that makes Google and Eric look a lot worse.How many
think tank papers have been quietly shredded because the author
didn't have the courage Barry Lynn did?
Spooky23 - 3 hours ago
All think tanks are like this. People don't tend to pay other
people to tell them their baby is ugly.IMO this is more about
Barry Lynn than Google. I've known about Google for nearly 20
years. Never heard of Barry.
frgtpsswrdlame - 3 hours ago
>All think tanks are like this.I don't necessarily disagree.
But it is a good moment to remind everyone that those white
papers have a man behind the curtain. It's also a nice cultural
moment for anti-trust (admittedly my pet issue.)>People don't
tend to pay other people to tell them their baby is ugly.Sure
but if I have an ugly baby and I start funding a group called
"The Baby Raters" and I watch and continue donating as they
judge all of my friends babies to be ugly but then pull funding
(or threaten to) when they judge my baby as ugly, I'd say that
I've successfully undermined the institution. It's no longer
what it says on the tin.
radicaldreamer - 3 hours ago
The whole think tank industry is like this. This is one of the
main reasons why things like single payer don't have the
intellectual backing of rigorous white papers and advocacy --
there isn't a whole lot of money to be made for corporations
lowering the cost of healtcare.
culturalzero - 2 hours ago
Wow. That's really disturbing actually...The layers of power
and control are so mind bogglingly intricate. Eric Schmidt just
demonstrated how finely tuned and detailed power actually is
today. To know of a single paper and effectively flip a switch
to shut it down. The Google of 'do no evil' is certainly dead.
Where does this leave us in changing these things? What options
are there for gaining momentum for real change when all the
powers that be fight against it?
CryptoPunk - 2 hours ago
>there isn't a whole lot of money to be made for corporations
lowering the cost of healtcare.There is a whole lot of money to
be made by special interests in giving people free heathcare at
the taxpayers expense. It means massively increasing government
spending afterall, and that gives those with political control
more resources to divvy up. And there's an enormous amount of
advocacy for single payer. It also does not reduce costs.
tptacek - 3 hours ago
I think this is a bit of a just-so story. Rebuttals:* There are
top-tier progressive think-tanks that write favorably about
single-payer; EPI is an example.* Single-payer is ideologically
anathema to conservatives and libertarians, so a majority of
think tanks are going to be constitutionally incapable of
proposing plans.* For the past 8 years or so, progressives have
been working to support the health care victory they already
achieved in the ACA, which has been under continuous assault
since the GOP regained control of the legislature. It would be
weird to see them endorsing a new health care system (and, in
the process, conceding defeat on the ACA).
[deleted]
cwyers - 3 hours ago
> there isn't a whole lot of money to be made for corporations
lowering the cost of healtcare.I don't know if that's true.
There are a lot of companies that would save money if
healthcare was cheaper -- pretty much every company in America
is a health-care consumer. It's just that benefits are diffuse
and the downsides of lower-cost health care are concentrated.
aaronblohowiak - 3 hours ago
large firms would lose talent to smaller firms.
digikata - 3 hours ago
Then the smaller firms could be acquired. As it is, because
of the slowing new-company generation, large firms have
been getting fewer and fewer options. Small firms can take
risks to create new products and processes which can then
be acquired and taken up and expanded by large companies.
Generally its much more difficult for a large company to do
that creation part in-house. So insufficient small firms
end up affecting the large-firm capability in the end.
SimbaOnSteroids - 3 hours ago
Unfortunately this type of long term benefit for the
large corporation doesn't affect the next quarterly
report and is ignored in favor of more short term gains.
digikata - 1 minutes ago
Productivity gains seem to be dropping and one theory is
that companies are getting larger, but aren't able to
pickup efficiency/new value generation boosts from
acquisitions like they once were able to (at an economy
wide scale, not talking about the acquisitions of any
specific company or even sectors here). It is difficult
to make any certain conclusions here though. But if true,
they will have to care sooner or later.
walshemj - 2 hours ago
Minor compared to the cost of funding health care
foota - 2 hours ago
Isn't YCs research arm looking into healthcare?
jjeaff - 3 hours ago
Exactly. Huge corporations would LOVE to push their health
insurance costs to the taxpayers.
frandroid - 1 hours ago
I think they're afraid some of the cost would be dumped
onto them.
criley2 - 3 hours ago
Maybe, but they LOVE the huge competitive advantage it
gives them over smaller and more nimble firms nipping at
their market share, because it's very onerous for small
businesses to competitively offer health benefits.
sbov - 1 hours ago
I think large companies love it the way it is. Healthcare
being so tightly bound to employment makes it more difficult
for employees to leave, which probably has a dampening affect
on salaries. I haven't had to deal with it in a while, but
getting healthcare for a small company ~10 years ago was a
nightmare.
SapphireSun - 3 hours ago
Barry Lynn <=> Sergey Brin?!!
gaius - 3 hours ago
But if Google started giving money to New America and Eric
Schmidt joined the board knowing that New America was funding an
anti-monopoly group then I think that makes Google and Eric look
a lot worseSchmidt joined the board in 2008. Lynn says he has
been doing this research since 1999.
binthere - 3 hours ago
Let's do a thought experiment: Imagine if a company had enough
power to inject money into all of the major media outlets, to the
point where they depend on this company to stay alive. Now, if this
company threatens to pull the money out if the media outlet says
anything that goes against it, the company will effectively have
control over the opinions of all major media channels. This is
obviously not acceptable in a society that considers itself "free
speech". It's free from legal consequences but when you shut
opinions down due to "other consequences" you end up with the same
result. A muted society.
[deleted]
Shivetya - 32 minutes ago
we don't need a thought experiment, Google has just been shown to
have demanded a site to take down an article they did not the
author of. they do this by withdrawing adsense income and with a
dominant position they can shape the content of the web. while
initially at the behest of their corporate needs its easy to see
how it will become co-opted by politicians
danschumann - 3 hours ago
Like that law that says you can't own more than x radio stations?
But what if you don't "own" them, just fund them. I think we
need to stretch the legal definition of ownership to influence.
yeukhon - 2 hours ago
This is how media and entertainment already bended to clients.
Pull advertisements or sponsorship = lost revenue. A large parent
corporation (e.g Verizon) can do this. Whether this is wise to
lose coverage is another assessment.
noir_lord - 3 hours ago
The funny thing there is we worry about someone having enough
money to exert soft power on the media while allowing Murdoch to
control a huge chunk of the media market in the UK (and US...).He
has far more control of the media than any single company could
hope to buy indirectly (and it'd be cheaper to just buy it
directly at that point I think).
frogpelt - 1 hours ago
I don't see your point.Somebody is going to own the media. It
just so happens that Murdoch started some media outlets.It's
much better than the media being state-run.
nebabyte - 5 minutes ago
>Somebody is going to own the mediaDisagree. Why do you think
anyone "owning the media" would be a giood idea, let alone an
acceptable one.
walshemj - 2 hours ago
Why do you think Jeff Bezos brought the Washington Post - he
saw how Rupert Murdoch works.Google should have brought the
independent when it was up for sale cheap
jeffdavis - 3 hours ago
You can make a similar argument about land: if one person owns
all of the land, the rest of the people won't be very free even
if the laws are the same.But neither argument is very convincing.
There's a lot of cheap land, and there are a lot of cheap ways to
publish your opinions widely.
arkades - 1 hours ago
As long as you don't piss off cloudflare.
[deleted]
pythonistic - 3 hours ago
I could argue that Mr. Lynn is crying "sour grapes" over this, but
he also came very close to a point Bryan Lunduke made recently
about Google[1]. Google has the power to stop people using their
products from making a living, and a collapse or compromise of
Google's infrastructure would cause untold economic harm to the
nation and world. If Google as an "information provider" fails
(search, email, telecommunications, DNS services, cloud services,
etc.) a lot of other businesses stop or collapse.A healthy economy
is a lot like a healthy ecosystem: some parts are weaker, some will
fail when stressed, but allowing the system to react naturally to
inputs will likely result in a better outcome. But when you
encourage a monoculture, single stresses can result in a complete
collapse[2]. We're experimenting with establishing monocultures in
our economies with potentially even more impact than those of the
19th and 20th centuries (like Standard Oil) that inspired the anti-
monopoly regulation and legislation: if Samsung were to shut down
tomorrow, what would be the impact on the Korean, regional and
world economies?An all-powerful Google that can't accept criticism
or action to "trim it back" to preserve the overall economy
represents a danger and Mr. Lynn was right to point this out.[1] -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwzJlvx4ndk [2] -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/04/the-w...
dade_ - 1 hours ago
I used most of Google's services. I thought they were great, but
them I met a neighbour of mine that held such hatred toward them
that I could only describe it as visceral. He told me a story of
how he used Gmail, Docs, chat, Blogger, but as a director YouTube
was the most important. One day his account was locked. Google
decided he had used YouTube inappropriately and suspended his
account. No recourse, no remedy, but more importantly his data
and online identity were instantly gone. And then I thought
about it, what if it happened to me? And that was the end of the
Google for me, death to my Apple ecosystem, and hello DNS
registrations and safety deposit boxes with the backups of my
data. SaaS is a Chinese Finger trap though, so the further you
are in....
wolco - 1 hours ago
Very important lesson in not connecting your google products
ryandrake - 2 hours ago
> If Google as an "information provider" fails (search, email,
telecommunications, DNS services, cloud services, etc.) a lot of
other businesses stop or collapse.Seems a bit of an exaggeration.
Let's pretend we got word from an all-powerful being that Google
and all of its services were going to disappear from the face of
the earth in exactly 30 days, giving everyone including users,
competitors, partners, etc. plenty of time to prepare. 30 days
from now, specifically, what collapses?
TheAdamAndChe - 2 hours ago
> Let's pretend.. that Google and all of its services were
going to [shut down] in exactly 30 daysThat wasn't the question
the post above was asking. The question wasn't "given a chance
to prepare, would the economy collapse," the question was "if
Google were to suddenly collapse, would our economy
survive?"There exist several single points of failure in our
global economy. Given the incredible importance Google has in
our economy, with search, email, collaboration software, and
cloud computing, it's not a stretch to say that Google is one
of those points of failure.It's also a location of power
concentration. Google basically controls the internet as most
see it. If your site is removed from Google, its chance of
becoming popular is almost completely removed. If you are
forced off of Google and you aren't prepared, you could lose
years of important information. They also track nearly
everyone, opening up the possibility of corporate population
control and cultural shaping.Do we really want single
corporations this powerful?
ryandrake - 59 minutes ago
The parent didn't specify a time frame, just that a failure
of Google would result in "untold economic harm to the nation
and world". Even if they went away tomorrow with no notice,
sure there would be some pain and a lot of IT departments
would be pulling in extra hours for some months, but come
on...
tristram_shandy - 1 hours ago
1. Every business that's running on GCE. They can't just "move
off the service" in 30 days. This is a big one. Billions of
dollars. Coca Cola obviously couldn't move in 30 days. Nor
Airbus.2. Every business that's running on GSuite. Let's assume
this is mostly small business, and they will have limited
ability to migrate to other SaaS or run in house replacements
for these services.3. Everyone who was using Youtube as a
primary source of income, or whose business had a critical
dependency on the Youtube platform for marketing4. Every piece
of code that depends on Google's DNS infrastructure, and
anything that pulls DNS entries from 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4... how
many devices like this do you think there are? How many were
hard coded?5. What happens to Android? It's a hypothetical, but
potentially it could keep going, but let's assume major
disruptions for everyone who runs a business that develops
mobile applications for Android6. How many people (and
businesses) depend on Google Maps? How many are tied in
directly to the API and won't be able to change this easily?7.
Now how many depend on Google Voice?8. Gmail has more than 1
billion active monthly users.I don't know if you're actually
looking for a specific list of businesses, but that's not going
to be possible for anyone to provide -- anyway, a shutdown of
Google services would be an economic catastrophe... Most people
couldn't even migrate a Gmail account in 30 days, and with
Gmail alone we're already talking a billion+ people.
user5994461 - 29 minutes ago
1. AWS and Azure2. Outlook 3653. Vimeo and Dailymotion4.
Every ISP provide DNS servers.5. IOS6. There are many
alternative to google maps. Google didn't invented maps.7.
Noone?8. There are many email service ready to take
over.There is nothing Google offers that can't be obtained
from another provider.And I'm not even getting into how
Google has zero presence in Russia/China and its
disappearance won't impact them.
ryandrake - 1 hours ago
These all look like fixable problems, certainly not easily
fixable, but also not on the level of "untold economic harm
to the nation and world" and business collapse. My comment
was that the parent was exaggerating, not that the loss
wouldn't be temporarily painful to some companies.
noir_lord - 3 hours ago
Funnily enough I mentioned Standard Oil in relation to Google and
Facebook on here the other day, I'd read some terrible Clive
Cussler novel that had Rockefeller as a character and that sent
me of to read more about him.
dfps - 44 minutes ago
This is a good point, but how would this cause Google's business
branch (advertising) from collapsing? Businesses want to
advertise, and their service here is reputable.
gaius - 3 hours ago
Google might as well cancel all funding to think tanks now -
because no-one will believe a single pro-Google word they say.
mrguyorama - 2 hours ago
If only we could be so lucky. Think tanks are often shown to be
biased or otherwise "poisoned", but the average person will refer
to and quote what they WANT to believe.Is it even possible for a
group like a think tank to remain "clean"? How would they get
their funding?
gaius - 2 hours ago
The RAND Corporation seem to be universally respected, how do
they do it?
dragonwriter - 2 hours ago
The RAND Corp is a military long-range planning project that
got separated from Douglas Aircraft to avoid conflict of
interest that would jeopardise Douglas?s eligibility for
contracts, and then took on a life of its own. It still does
a lot of federal work ubder governments of both parties,
and's kind of important to that that it's not seen either as
an shill for a particular ideology or a shill for particular
corporate interests. That is, while advancing particular
viewpoints is the purpose of some think tanks and the
financial interests of others, it's neither for RAND.
bhhaskin - 2 hours ago
Googles growing influence in the world is darn right scary. They
are a private company so they can do what ever they want (i.e. they
could delist & censor anything the author writes) and claim free
speech. If they wanted to they could wipe someone's online identity
off the face of the web.
[deleted]
tryingagainbro - 2 hours ago
Just a private army is missing to complete them. Essos maybe?IMO,
no company should be this powerful.Let's not forget that Google
also bought off quite a few shameless professors during the FTC
investigation. http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/07/13/google-
favorable-r...
[deleted]
akras14 - 2 hours ago
I used to think that Sundar Pichai was pushing all questionable
things at Google. I now realize that roots of the problems may be
deeper.
rifung - 1 hours ago
Disclaimer: I work at Google.Would you mind explaining why you
thought that of Sundar Pichai? Not trying to defend him or us I
am just curious as this is the first time I've heard that.
rtx - 2 hours ago
Deeper or maybe just with Schmidt.
shp0ngle - 3 hours ago
Can you criticise Amazon or Jeff Bezos on wapost?
dghughes - 3 hours ago
"Don't be evil" is still in the Google code of conduct.Legal as
Google's demand was it seems to qualify as evil or at least
unethical.
calbear81 - 3 hours ago
Except for the definition of "evil" is pretty grey. If Google
believes that their worldview is the "good", then people who
challenge that viewpoint are necessarily harming the good and
therefore shutting them down would not be evil at all.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
AndrewKemendo - 3 hours ago
I and the entire Open Markets team were let go because it?s not in
Google?s interest to finance criticism of its business model. It?s
as simple as that.Right. Where's the scandal here? If you don't
want someone or some company to have monetary power over you, then
don't take money from them. I understand that it's not so simple,
but at the end of the day this can't be surprising.To wit...his
prefacing comment says a lot:No think tank wants to appear beholden
to the demands of its corporate donors.Operative word being -
appear. In fact they all are beholden, of course, you just want to
make sure not to appear to be.
Gatsky - 29 minutes ago
Yes exactly. It's hard to take this guy seriously when monopoly
profits were paying his bills.Note that when he was publishing
monopoly research there was no problem, it was the decision to
'celebrate' the EU fine that seems to have got him fired.
akgerber - 3 hours ago
The scandal is that most of the policy research in the US is
funded by supposedly-neutral think tanks which are funded this
way? which means new laws will usually be designed to serve the
big interests that fund think tanks.
dcre - 3 hours ago
This is it. So many people appear unable to understand
criticism at a structural level. As long as every individual or
corporation is acting as you'd expect them to act given the
conditions they're in, we're supposed to throw up our hands.But
of course we don't have to do that. We can note the various
reasons things work this way ? growing monopoly power, tax laws
governing nonprofits, lobbying regulations ? and figure out
how to change them.
AndrewKemendo - 3 hours ago
Not to sound glib but that's nothing new and everyone in the
research world knows that. The only new thing here is that it's
a public story involving Google.
anigbrowl - 2 hours ago
supposedly-neutral think tanksWho told you they were supposed
to be neutral? The only thing I expect from a think tank is
reproducibility of results, if they are making claim to an
objective result.
jondubois - 3 hours ago
Think tanks should be funded by governments and they should liaise
with industry in an impartial, academic way. Any corporation which
tries to fund a think tank should be accused of bribery or
corruption.
dang - 2 hours ago
Big discussion about this yesterday:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131370
[deleted]
bitmapbrother - 2 hours ago
If this person expected any other result from his ridiculous action
then he was delusional. If my salary is funded by Google and I
publically publish a celebratory post congratulating the EU for
fining Google then I fully expect to be fired.
[deleted]
outside1234 - 3 hours ago
We see now that "Do no evil" was a sham and a cover story, for in
fact, doing evil.
5trokerac3 - 2 hours ago
Not at all surprising if you've read When Google Met
Wikileaks[0]That being said, how delusional do you have to be
working in a political think tank and think it'll be ok to cheer a
multi-billion dollar fine against your main financial contributor.
This guy got pummeled by his own hubris.[0] -
https://www.amazon.com/When-Google-WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange/...
cat199 - 3 hours ago
Sooo... if anyone at google wants to make the 'I feel lucky' link
for 'streisand effect' go to this article, that would be a great
easter egg.. just saying..
squarefoot - 2 hours ago
A huge number of blogs and sites make money through Google (adwords
etc), so technically they're funded also by Google. Does this mean
that they cannot host any criticism against Google or risk being
shut down?
gojomo - 3 hours ago
Related questions:Should pseudonymous commenters in threads like
this disclose if they, in fact, work for Google?Should downvoters?
(I've sometimes noticed mildly Google-skeptical comments here
sinking in a rush of downvotes, without refutation, and wondered to
what extent Google's sheer size suppresses certain discussions.)
clarkevans - 3 hours ago
Regarding concentration of corporate power and economics, Nick
Hanauer was on the 1A yesterday [1] and had relevant commentary.
He also brought up problems with inequality a few years ago [2] and
last month [3].[1] http://the1a.org/shows/2017-08-30/zillionaire-
to-other-zilli...[2] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06
/the-pitchfork...[3]
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/to-my-fell...
SimbaOnSteroids - 2 hours ago
He also has a TEDx talk that says just as much.
tptacek - 3 hours ago
It's a weird situation for a number of reasons. Schmidt is clearly
culpable, but it also seems to be the case that New America was
existentially dependent on Google-derived funding.
dman - 3 hours ago
The interesting generalization of that question is that after >
10 years of an ad fueled boom who else is existentially dependent
on Google?
CryoLogic - 3 hours ago
Millions of web based businesses relying on ads served by
Google adwords.
tptacek - 3 hours ago
Right, and when Google uses its clout in online ads to starve
businesses that criticize Google, it'll be a clearer, less
fraught story. Here, though, New America is dependent on
charity from Google. Google doesn't donate to every think
tank in Washington, just the ones it agrees with or has
something to gain from.
cwyers - 3 hours ago
"I bit the hand that fed me. It stopped feeding me. That's how
eating out of someone's hand works."
ErikVandeWater - 3 hours ago
If Google admitted it was their propaganda arm then he would
have no right to complain. But since they never did, it
behooves Google to fund their outcomes regardless of whether
their research benefits/harms Google.
mulmen - 3 hours ago
How so? Why would it benefit Google to fund outcomes that
harm Google. How can a harm be a benefit?
pcwalton - 2 hours ago
Because any short-term harm that might have come from an
undesirable policy paper is outweighed by the long-term,
and lasting, harm to Google's reputation that is occurring
now.
tarboreus - 3 hours ago
Hypothetically, letting some anti-Google rhetoric through
might legitimize an otherwise supportive stance.Say I'm 80%
evil and I fund a think tank. The think tank's reputation
was 100, and now it's 60 with regard to statements about me
because my funding it makes it seem biased. If it published
a story that says I'm actually 4% evil, then it gets a
reputation boost, I'm not looking as bad as I actually am,
and I'm well positioned to let the organization do positive
spin when I really need it.I would say that Google and
similar orgs actually usually do this. But Google and
Amazon are getting really, really nervous when people talk
about monopoly. If anti-trust comes back into vogue, and it
could possibly, then it's an existential threat for these
empires. They have to carefully manage their carrots and
sticks on this issue, and with this one they went with the
stick.
Spivak - 2 hours ago
The obvious one is that nobody is going to trust the
results of that group anymore.
rtx - 2 hours ago
Same reason we pay accountants.
joeyo - 3 hours ago
Why should Google expect funding a non-profit would benefit
them? They get the tax-write-off precisely because it
benefits The People first and Google second, if at all.
gertef - 3 hours ago
No, you are confusing charity with non-profit. Not every
non-profit is a charity. Example: the NFL, a non-profit
that serves its taxpaying members. A non-profit is an
organization that exist not to generate revenue for its
owners, so the owners don't pay tax -- the members or
beneficaries do, under regular tax laws. Google pays
taxes on its profits generated via the activity of the
nonprofit.
notatoad - 3 hours ago
This was my reaction - It is my understanding that "think tanks"
are essentially a nice name for lobbying organizations. A google
funded lobbyist being fired for criticizing the company he is
paid to lobby for doesn't seem out of the ordinary. Not that i
think it's good, but it sounds like a perfectly normal event
given the current state of western politics.Or am i mistaken and
think tanks are usually politically neutral pure-research
organizations?
cjcole - 1 hours ago
You can construe it more broadly than that."Think tanks" are
influence laundering operations.If someone or some corporation
wants something (anything) done, it is more persuasive when the
proposed ideas come from an ostensibly neutral organization
rather than a transparently self-interested one.This works well
or it wouldn't be done this way. This is also why influence
laundering organizations will fight tooth and nail to defend
the appearance of funding-independence while knowing quite well
that it's a lie: the appearance of neutrality is the product
they are selling to patrons, and if they can't sell product
they will go out of business.
francisofascii - 3 hours ago
well, they are "supposed" to be non-partisan with policy
proposals based on objective research
tptacek - 3 hours ago
Think tanks are rarely neutral; they're generally organized
around a set of ideological principles. New America isn't
really a pro-Google lobbying organization, except in the sense
that by shackling themselves financially to Google, they've
rendered themselves incapable of criticizing Google even when
Google contravenes their principles.As a lobbying strategy it
would be a little like Google trying to take financial control
over Cato or Heritage, not to get those think tanks to spew
pro-Google stuff, but to ensure that the primary conservative
and libertarian voices in Washington were unable to criticize
Google.(Cato's relationship with the Koch brothers gets similar
criticism).It's definitely fraught! But New America isn't a
victim here.
mulmen - 3 hours ago
Even if they are politically neutral why would the think tank
expect to be funded by the target of their criticism? If they
are truly neutral why would they not seek out diverse funding
sources?
tarboreus - 3 hours ago
The idea is that sources are interested in funding BECAUSE
they might be criticized. That's when they actually get
something out of it. Not a lot of actual altruists in the
world, and if they exist, they're funding NGOs that deal with
clean water or hunger or something less abstract, at least in
the aggregate.
EmTekker - 1 hours ago
One should really read Julian Assange's views on Schmidt and
Google's think tank. It seems like he got it right.Here's the link
to the article: http://www.newsweek.com/assange-google-not-what-it-
seems-279...
[deleted]
bduerst - 1 hours ago
Julian Assange also said he would turn himself in if Chelsea
Manning was pardoned, which she was. Assange works for RT [1],
and cannot be taken seriously, which is probably why you created
a new account just to post that.[1] https://www.rt.com/tags/the-
julian-assange-show/
cjcole - 1 hours ago
Interesting read."Schmidt arrived first, accompanied by his then
partner, Lisa Shields. When he introduced her as a vice president
of the Council on Foreign Relations?a U.S. foreign-policy think
tank with close ties to the State Department?I thought little
more of it. Shields herself was straight out of Camelot, having
been spotted by John Kennedy Jr.?s side back in the early
1990s....Some time later Jared Cohen arrived. With him was Scott
Malcomson, introduced as the book?s editor. Three months after
the meeting Malcomson would enter the State Department as the
lead speechwriter and principal advisor to Susan Rice (then U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, now national security
advisor)....I knew little else about Cohen at the time. In fact,
Cohen had moved to Google from the U.S. State Department in 2010.
He had been a fast-talking ?Generation Y? ideas man at State
under two U.S. administrations, a courtier from the world of
policy think tanks and institutes, poached in his early
twenties.He became a senior advisor for Secretaries of State Rice
and Clinton. At State, on the Policy Planning Staff, Cohen was
soon christened ?Condi?s party-starter,? channeling buzzwords
from Silicon Valley into U.S. policy circles and producing
delightful rhetorical concoctions such as ?Public Diplomacy 2.0.?
On his Council on Foreign Relations adjunct staff page he listed
his expertise as ?terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection
technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran.?"What I get from
this is that Schmidt has (had?) very deep links into the US State
Department.This was new to me so thanks.
mikeash - 2 hours ago
Why is this so interesting? They criticized a major customer and
got fired. This would be distressing if it was a newspaper or
scientific research organization or something, but I have no
expectation that a "think tank" would have a hard wall between
customers and output.Does it just come down to some people having a
completely different idea of what a "think tank" is and why it
exists?
mulmen - 1 hours ago
I think this prompts an interesting conversation about corporate
power to influence speech. Also, think tanks impact more than
just the people funding them so the customer model doesn't fit as
neatly.
abandonliberty - 3 hours ago
tl;dr for all you commenters not reading the article:Barry worked
for "New America, a think tank and civic enterprise committed to
renewing American politics, prosperity, and purpose in the Digital
Age."He criticized Google, a significant patron of the think tank,
and got fired when Eric threatened to pull funding.This has little
to do with at-will employment and much more about the impact of
having most research privately funded in a capitalist environment.
_mb - 1 hours ago
I'm confused why this story has so many upvotes... someone
criticized a company then said company fires the person. BAU?
sigi45 - 3 hours ago
Adblock and than i need a subscription? no.
mulmen - 3 hours ago
I'm curious, how do you propose they pay their costs? If you are
unwilling to look at ads why is it unreasonable for them to ask
you to pay a subscription?
mykeliu - 3 hours ago
Just to play devil's advocate, I wonder if it would be possible
to sustain WaPo from Amazon's revenue stream, and what impacts
that could have on ostensible and de facto journalistic
integrity.
m-watson - 3 hours ago
Not really addressing the heart of your question but WaPo is
owned by Bezos and his holding company not Amazon. So they
would not really have a great reason to siphon off Amazon's
revenue stream.
mulmen - 3 hours ago
1) WaPo is not owned by Amazon.2) That would create a clear
conflict of interest. This post is an example of what can
happen when you have only one source of funding which you may
need to criticize.
sigi45 - 1 hours ago
Just to be clear: I will not subscribe to every single
newspaper just because an article got linked on hn.
mulmen - 1 hours ago
That's not a very good answer. Do you think one newspaper
should allow you to read their work because you subscribe to
another? If you don't want to subscribe just turn off the
adblocker. They're giving you the choice.
vaishaksuresh - 3 hours ago
Washington post gives you a long trial period if you are an
Amazon prime customer. The subscription is cheaper if you are a
student. Support good journalists, they are people too. Either
give them ad revenue or get a subscription. If you don't work for
free, don't expect others to.
[deleted]
gertef - 3 hours ago
This screed isn't good journalism, though. For the best that
people get blocked by the paywall.
metaphorm - 2 hours ago
it's an opinion piece written by an interested party. why do
you think that's the same thing as journalism?
vaishaksuresh - 1 hours ago
Then don't read and don't complain about their business
model. Simple.
sigi45 - 1 hours ago
Just to be clear: I will not subscribe to every single
newspaper just because an article got linked on hn.And no i
will not trial every newspaper for an article linked on hn.
vaishaksuresh - 1 hours ago
Good! then don't complain about it every time an article from
the source you don't subscribe to gets posted.
hibikir - 3 hours ago
I used to buy videogames at a Gamestop next to my neighborhood
supermarket. At one point, they had an employee that seemed to love
to make unnecessary negative comments about my taste in games. It's
a manager's prerogative to fire the employee for providing a bad
customer experience, just like it was mine to just get my games
somewhere else. Ultimately donors are think tank customers, and
this is all perfectly fine: A world where I am forced to go to the
same store, or a Gamestop manager has to tolerate an employee that
tries to deter people from buying non-microsoft products, is
probably worse than one where someone on a think tank has to
measure what they say.There's learnings to had here though: The
case of a think tank relying on very few donors is no different
than a B2B startup that relies on a single enterprise company: You
have a tremendous risk, the funding can disappear at any time, and
for any reason. Anything other than diversification puts you at
risk, and it's not really the customer's fault if you put yourself
in a very weak position.This also affects far bigger fish, like
media companies and even legislators. And that's why we should have
care when it comes to both media consolidation, or mechanisms where
very few people can have a very big influence in the outcome of an
election. But it's not as if we live in a world where the only way
to have a think tank that produces policy proposals is to clear
everything with Google.
etjossem - 2 hours ago
The retail example is an oversimplification. When the consumers
of a company's product are also its primary source of revenue,
nobody is under any illusions about who that company is
responsible to. You are the person most impacted by Gamestop's
customer experience, and you are also the main way Gamestop makes
money. Your satisfaction is paramount, so it makes total sense
for a company to fire people who don't deliver. Similar example:
there's nothing irresponsible about insisting your public
relations firm writes you a flattering press release, because
everyone understands that a press release is paid for by the
company it concerns.A think tank is a different sort of animal.
The donor is not the main entity impacted by the policy proposals
the think tank produces. Just like a responsible media outlet
must have a notion of journalistic integrity, or a legislator's
office should feel beholden to its constituents, a think tank has
a responsibility to provide sound policy advice to its
readers.You can take the position that "think tanks do not have
any level of responsibility to the people who consume their
policy proposals" but I certainly would not follow you there.
Policy institutes present themselves as rigorously data-driven
nonprofits and write with an impartial air. If criticism /
negative results are known to lead directly to a loss of funding,
then it is disingenuous for the think tank to present itself as
impartial, and I would consider it compromised.We tend to solve
this problem with regulatory agencies that represent the impacted
consumer (and not the source of revenue), though I would note
that this is the very solution the author was fired for praising.