3 ms·
I'm inclined to agree with the author about the legitimizing effect that sponsorship can have. In the case of Palantir it looks like a clear conflict of interes
by Confiks 11y ago
I'm inclined to agree with the author about the legitimizing effect that sponsorship can have. In the case of Palantir it looks like a clear conflict of interest. I appreciate the deconstruction of the 'multi-stakeholder conference' into the realization that the stakes are indeed not equal – and in fact so unequal that the very existence of the conference hinges on the cooperation of the bigger stakes.
I'm a bit put off by the multiple references to Caspar (Bowden) supposedly "turning in his grave"; the author doesn't explain how he is so sure (that Bowden would disapprove). Especially since the CPDP event of 2015 was also sponsored by Palantir, and Bowden was on the organizing committee, a moderator and on a panel of that conference.
- jdp23 11y agoAgreed about Caspar Bowden. He worked at Microsoft for a while. And both before and after that, he was very active with the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference in the US (he once described CPDP to me as "a European attempt to replicate CFP"), whose sponsors include Microsoft, Google, and other companies that have similar conflicts of interest. To me it seems that there's something to be said for both approaches. Conferences with corporate sponsorship aren't going to be revolutionary; balanced against that, they do provide places to engage and ways of getting different perspectives out more broadly. [The same's true for government speakers.] Purer conferences like Aral's talking about can have a different focus and I can certainly see why some people prefer them. So, kudos to Aral for sticking to his principles and declining the invitation. I'm still looking forward to the panel, and don't think that Marc Rotenberg or Brigitta Johansen will limit what they have to say based on the sponsorship.