5 ms·

The 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 author

The 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 ago
Everyone 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 ago
    1. "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://...
    - thrownaway2424 11y ago
      That reads to me more like trying to actually diversify the attendance, rather than trying to hide the overrepresentation of Google. Google faces the same problem at other conferences, for what it's worth. There were some Lisa / USENIX type things focused on "site reliability engineering" where Google was noticeably overrepresented.
      - cscurmudgeon 11y ago
        That happened too, but that is not the only thing though. They did the following two different things. 1. Trying to diversify attendance 2. Hiding some attendees from a public list of all attendees Trying to diversify attendance != Hiding some attendees from a public list of all attendees
    - magicalist 11y ago
      > "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 That's an email from "James Cooper, a former FTC staffer and director of research and policy at the LEC", not someone from Google? Asking someone who works at a sponsor of a conference for suggestions of who to put on a panel at that conference isn't really in the realm of that sponsor "setting the agenda"
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- wdr1 11y ago
  > Everyone knows Microsoft does not always play nice. Far from true. As a 40-something, I share the same viewpoint on Microsoft, but I'm talked with many 20-somethings who seemed surprised at my outright rejection of using anything from Microsoft.
  - scholia 11y ago
    For most of their lives, Microsoft has been operating under the close supervision of the US Justice Dept (in the person of US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly), and she said that the company had been "overwhelmingly cooperative". It's also had the European Commission on its back, trying to extract any fines it could possibly get. So, it's been obliged to play nicely enough to stay within the law, and it's had to pay heavily for any lapses. For what it's worth (probably not much), Microsoft has also been on the list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for the past five years running. So, how bothered are you personally about any bad things companies may have done 15-20 years before you were born? How bothered do you expect them to be?
alrs 11y ago
Bork is anti-antitrust. It would be news were he in favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  I think it would be more correct to say that he was against the kind of antitrust action they practice in Europe, which protects the competitors, and in favor of the kind we practice in America, which is focused on protecting the consumer, which makes sense because Bork set the agenda for modern antitrust enforcement in America. As your article states, Bork is the most-cited author on the topic. He defined antitrust.
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    Remind me again how that worked for telecoms :-)

cscurmudgeon 11y ago

Everyone 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 ago
  1. "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://...
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    That reads to me more like trying to actually diversify the attendance, rather than trying to hide the overrepresentation of Google. Google faces the same problem at other conferences, for what it's worth. There were some Lisa / USENIX type things focused on "site reliability engineering" where Google was noticeably overrepresented.
    - cscurmudgeon 11y ago
      That happened too, but that is not the only thing though. They did the following two different things. 1. Trying to diversify attendance 2. Hiding some attendees from a public list of all attendees Trying to diversify attendance != Hiding some attendees from a public list of all attendees
  - magicalist 11y ago
    > "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 That's an email from "James Cooper, a former FTC staffer and director of research and policy at the LEC", not someone from Google? Asking someone who works at a sponsor of a conference for suggestions of who to put on a panel at that conference isn't really in the realm of that sponsor "setting the agenda"
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
wdr1 11y ago
> Everyone knows Microsoft does not always play nice. Far from true. As a 40-something, I share the same viewpoint on Microsoft, but I'm talked with many 20-somethings who seemed surprised at my outright rejection of using anything from Microsoft.
- scholia 11y ago
  For most of their lives, Microsoft has been operating under the close supervision of the US Justice Dept (in the person of US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly), and she said that the company had been "overwhelmingly cooperative". It's also had the European Commission on its back, trying to extract any fines it could possibly get. So, it's been obliged to play nicely enough to stay within the law, and it's had to pay heavily for any lapses. For what it's worth (probably not much), Microsoft has also been on the list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies for the past five years running. So, how bothered are you personally about any bad things companies may have done 15-20 years before you were born? How bothered do you expect them to be?

alrs 11y ago

Bork is anti-antitrust. It would be news were he in favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
thrownaway2424 11y ago
I think it would be more correct to say that he was against the kind of antitrust action they practice in Europe, which protects the competitors, and in favor of the kind we practice in America, which is focused on protecting the consumer, which makes sense because Bork set the agenda for modern antitrust enforcement in America. As your article states, Bork is the most-cited author on the topic. He defined antitrust.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Remind me again how that worked for telecoms :-)