8 ms·
How Google Is Bankrolling Friendly Academics
- IBM 11y agoRelated article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transf...
- gohrt 11y ago> In May 2012, the law school at George Mason University hosted a forum billed as a “vibrant discussion” about Internet search competition. Many of the major players in the field were there — regulators from the Federal Trade Commission, federal and state prosecutors, top congressional staffers. > What the guests had not been told was that the day-long academic conference was in large part the work of Google, which maneuvered behind the scenes with GMU’s Law & Economics Center to put on the event. At the time, the company was under FTC investigation over concerns about the dominance of its famed search engine, a case that threatened Google’s core business.
- Animats 11y agoGeorge Mason University (formerly George Mason Community College) is a right-wing lobbying organization. Their "Law and Economics Center", to which Google donated, says "The vision of the LEC is that if policymakers understand economics, they will be more likely to make sound decisions that support the rule of law and the free enterprise system, thus advancing innovation, job creation, and economic growth. ... LEC is uniquely equipped to positively affect national policy outcomes."
- dexterdog 11y agoDoesn't sound right wing to me. It sounds libertarian, but that doesn't mean they practice what they preach.
- smadge 11y agoFree market libertarianism is right wing.
- tn13 11y agoRight wing also refers to "weed should be banned", "abortions are illegal" type religious lunatics as well. Libertarians often do not like to be called right wing because they are not.
- freditup 11y agoThere are reasonable cases to be made for both keeping weed illegal and banning abortions. Labeling people as lunatics because you disagree with them is a very dangerous road to go down.
- tn13 11y agoMight be, but there is nothing wrong in labeling people I dont like as lunatics.
- smadge 11y agoI'm sorry that capitalist libertarians don't like being associated with social conservatives. They should have thought of that before entering a political alliance with them in the 80s. edit: typo
- tn13 11y agoGeorge Mason University is libertarian and not right wing. I think Google donating to a libertarian organization is a good thing.
- gotchange 11y agoUS contemporary libertarianism for all intents and purposes is right-leaning. Globally, it's the complete opposite with a lot of similarities to anarchism.
- username223 11y agoInteresting -- I know nothing about non-US libertarianism. In the US, it has been filtered through a two-party system of roughly "public/economic control and private freedom" (D) vs. "public/economic freedom and private control" (R). The result is that it has been largely coopted by the (R) side to promote public/economic anarchy.
- evanpw 11y agoSome issues where libertarians disagree with the American right wing: immigration, drug legalization, government surveillance, abortion, gay marriage, jury nullification, right-to-die, foreign wars, ...
- gotchange 11y agoAll of these issues albeit, crucial and important, are social not economic. A liberatarian in the traditional sense of the word would favor a more egalitarian economic system without the interference of the state than the established casino capitalist system of today.
- evanpw 11y ago...corporate welfare, tax breaks for favored companies / industries, patents & copyright, eminent domain. I take your point though, and I think is a valid criticism in a lot of cases.
- slapshot 11y agoIf you're going to smear a school, at least get it right. GMU was never known as a "community college." It was founded as an eastern campus of UVA and then promoted directly to being an independent research university. The only two names it has ever been known by are "the George Mason College of the University of Virginia" and "George Mason University." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason_University#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason_University#Histor...
- stvswn 11y agoIf we were to grant your premise that GMU is a conservative university -- why the hell would that matter? What argument are you trying to make?
- gohrt 11y agoA university that describes itself in the language of a polictical "think tank", conducting research in support of pre-announced conclusions, is a bit fishy.
- bcohn91 11y agoThanks to the author for highlighting the insidious effect of soft lobbying. I'm also interested in difference between American and European approaches to anti-trust law. From what I understand, US regulators generally look for harm to the consumer, whereas their European counterparts try to detect harm done to competitors. It seems that the European approach might insulate European firms from healthy competition, while leading to dead-weight loss of consumer surplus. For example, if Google offers Yelp's reviews up on a Google.com domain, that might be more convenient for the consumer, who doesn't have to bounce around to different websites to find an answer. And it also might spur Yelp to find a way to add unique value to the consumer's experience instead of providing superfluous services.
- tn13 11y agoI am unable to see why author has has knickers in twist.
- morninj 11y agoBrett Glass's head just exploded. If you're not familiar with him, Brett is a small ISP operator who dependably interrupts internet policy conversations to accuse pretty much everyone of shilling for Google. Lessig took the time to write a full rebuttal: http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/90048838607/on-the-curious-case-of-brett-glass http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/90048838607/on-the-curious-cas...
- crazy1van 11y agoMy gut reaction to this article's premise is to believe it. However, it's evidence seems to be pretty lacking. Consider this passage: "But before Wright’s confirmation, the FTC already decided against filing charges against Google, overriding its own staff’s recommendations. Google only had to voluntarily agree to alter some of its business practices to resolve the case. Google’s actions between 2011 and 2013 show how they dodge legal bullets: by molding elite opinion, using the support of experts and academics as a firewall against criticism." It's cleverly worded to make you think that Google bought off the FTC via Wright, but the chronology of events as the text describes is actually: 1) Google funds Wright. 2) Google agrees to alter its business practices. 3) FTC agrees not to charge them. 4) Wright is confirmed at the FTC.
- jlarocco 11y agoYou're leaving out a key issue, which is that the FTC made their decision not to file charges based on papers and arguments from academics (including Wright) who were being paid by Google.
- crazy1van 11y agoI might be missing it, but I don't think the article ever actually offers any evidence that academic papers funded by Google influenced FTC decisions. Granted, I would not be at all surprised if Google hoped the academics they funded would help influence the FTC. But this article seems to want to cleverly word things to make the reader think there is evidence for this without actually presenting any.
- jlarocco 11y agoIt's very unlikely the FTC hired Wright without being familiar with his work, meaning they had to read it and be influenced by it in some way. You're correct that it's not a slam dunk indication of guilt, but that's never the case in situations like this. At the very least it's suspicious, and everybody involved should have known better.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoThe article seems to rest on the idea that if Google wasn't funding these guys, there wouldn't be any academic opinion in their favor. But no less of an authority on anti-trust than Robert Bork was also against the FTC action[1]. Article also doesn't seem bothered by the fact that the pro-FTC-action group, fairsearch.org, is a puppet group of Microsoft. If the people spurring FTC investigations are Google's corporate enemies, it only seems fair for Google to defend themselves with a bit of academic funding. https://www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/bork-sidak-google-search-oup.pdf https://www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/bork-sidak-google-se...
- cscurmudgeon 11y agoEveryone knows Microsoft does not always play nice. Also funding a group is nowhere the same as manipulating academia slyly (fixing academic conference speakers). Yikes. Did not expect this from Google. > Google played an unusually active role in the George Mason conferences. The Washington Post has previously published emails showing Google public policy representatives giving LEC officials detailed information on what regulatory, law enforcement and Congressional staff to invite to the conference. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2014/04/12/how-google-worked-behind-the-scenes-to-invite-federal-regulators-to-conferences/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2014/04/12/h... I am from academia. Nowhere do sponsors actively set the agenda for an academic conference.
- magicalist 11y ago> Nowhere do sponsors actively set the agenda for an academic conference. Agenda is one thing but that's not what either article is claiming? It's extremely common (the rule, not the exception) for sponsors to suggest and directly invite people to conferences (and at least in those published emails there doesn't appear to be any suggestions for speakers, just attendees).
- cscurmudgeon 11y ago1. "just attendees " No. More than just attendees. Selecting panel members e.g. http://media.salon.com/2015/11/GMU-email-2.png http://media.salon.com/2015/11/GMU-email-2.png 2. They are asking people to hide the number of employees from Google attending this so that the whole thing looks innocuous. https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2014/04/email3-1.jpg&w=1484 https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://...
- rivertown 11y agoSalon!? C'mon people. We can do better than this.
- partiallypro 11y agoThis isn't all that important, but what is important is that Google (unless this has changed) spends the most lobbying of any U.S. company. They don't want to fall victim to what happened to Microsoft in the 90s.
- jinst8gmi 11y agoI don't think "Microsoft", "90's" and "victim" really go well together unless you're talking about Netscape as the victim.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y agoIts more Microsoft sleep waked into more than one legal problem that if they had been less politically naive woudl not have happened or been as bad.
- saucetenuto 11y agoDo you have a source for this? According to opensecrets.org, they're in the top 2 for tech companies (their major rival is Comcast), but they spend much less than Blue Cross/Blue Shield or the National Association of Realtors. This has been true since at least 2010 (as far back as I checked). They do sometimes spend more than Boeing, which I wouldn't have guessed.
- partiallypro 11y agoI meant to preface with "tech company." Google is only 9th overall, though they might have moved up in the past year http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-google-lobbying-idUSKBN0NC1UO20150421 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-google-lobbying...
- declan 11y agoLet's not forget about Microsoft's Techpolicy.com, which it describes as "a forum for academics." Note this is not funding, say, basic research in computer science; it's a pure policy focus. I'm not sure if this would also count as "bankrolling friendly academics?" I don't mean to single out Microsoft; I suspect many large companies do the same. And maybe the practice is defensible in principle--if academics get grants from Ford, Rockefeller, MacArthur and other organizations with a pro-regulation focus, maybe companies should give grants to fund work skeptical of regulation?
- boot13 11y agoSo Google is just doing what every other corporation does. This is the reality of business today.