3 ms·

I 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 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 ago
It'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.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > It'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. The FTC didn't hire Wright, Wright was appointed to the FTC by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The FTC doesn't choose its own commissioners any more than the Supreme Court chooses its own members.
  - jlarocco 11y ago
    Okay, I didn't know that, but I don't know if it matters. Clearly he had to be well known and influential to be appointed as a commissioner.
username223 11y ago
> Granted, I would not be at all surprised if Google hoped the academics they funded would help influence the FTC. As an academic, you live or die by your funding. (Teaching doesn't matter.) To become a "prominent academic," you probably want to become a chair or at least faculty at a major university. If Google "guarantees" your funding as long as you write the things they want written, you have a significant incentive to look upon them favorably. There doesn't need to be an email saying "write a paper saying this, and we'll pay you that." All it takes is a generally-understood and well-funded "hope" that academics write the things Google wants.
- netheril96 11y ago
  The academic would certainly be writing in Google's favor, but the question is, is there any evidence that this academic's writing convinces anyone on the FTC? That is not offered in the article.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  This sounds more like an argument to discredit all academics. Someone is funding them all...right?
  - username223 11y ago
    You're too cynical. People who are skilled enough don't have to prostitute themselves as brand sponsors.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      I didn't say it was my argument. >As an academic, you live or die by your funding. (Teaching doesn't matter.)
      - username223 11y ago
        I apparently misunderstood. What did you think was my argument to discredit all academics? What I wrote was that your value to the department is your funding, not your teaching. If you're good, the funding takes care of itself; if not, you whore yourself to whomever you can.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        If you read: >If Google "guarantees" your funding as long as you write the things they want written, you have a significant incentive to look upon them favorably. as a type of discrediting due to the source of the "guarantee" on funding, then: >As an academic, you live or die by your funding. implies that all live academics are funded. Funding must come from somewhere with some form of guarantee. If we can generalize Google to stand in for any other source of funding, then you have constructed an argument that discredits all live academics.

jlarocco 11y ago

It'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.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> It'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. The FTC didn't hire Wright, Wright was appointed to the FTC by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The FTC doesn't choose its own commissioners any more than the Supreme Court chooses its own members.
- jlarocco 11y ago
  Okay, I didn't know that, but I don't know if it matters. Clearly he had to be well known and influential to be appointed as a commissioner.

username223 11y ago

> Granted, I would not be at all surprised if Google hoped the academics they funded would help influence the FTC. As an academic, you live or die by your funding. (Teaching doesn't matter.) To become a "prominent academic," you probably want to become a chair or at least faculty at a major university. If Google "guarantees" your funding as long as you write the things they want written, you have a significant incentive to look upon them favorably. There doesn't need to be an email saying "write a paper saying this, and we'll pay you that." All it takes is a generally-understood and well-funded "hope" that academics write the things Google wants.

netheril96 11y ago
The academic would certainly be writing in Google's favor, but the question is, is there any evidence that this academic's writing convinces anyone on the FTC? That is not offered in the article.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
This sounds more like an argument to discredit all academics. Someone is funding them all...right?
- username223 11y ago
  You're too cynical. People who are skilled enough don't have to prostitute themselves as brand sponsors.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I didn't say it was my argument. >As an academic, you live or die by your funding. (Teaching doesn't matter.)
    - username223 11y ago
      I apparently misunderstood. What did you think was my argument to discredit all academics? What I wrote was that your value to the department is your funding, not your teaching. If you're good, the funding takes care of itself; if not, you whore yourself to whomever you can.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        If you read: >If Google "guarantees" your funding as long as you write the things they want written, you have a significant incentive to look upon them favorably. as a type of discrediting due to the source of the "guarantee" on funding, then: >As an academic, you live or die by your funding. implies that all live academics are funded. Funding must come from somewhere with some form of guarantee. If we can generalize Google to stand in for any other source of funding, then you have constructed an argument that discredits all live academics.