3 ms·
> 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 fund
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThis sounds more like an argument to discredit all academics. Someone is funding them all...right?
- username223 11y agoYou're too cynical. People who are skilled enough don't have to prostitute themselves as brand sponsors.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoI didn't say it was my argument. >As an academic, you live or die by your funding. (Teaching doesn't matter.)
- username223 11y agoI 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 agoIf 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.