4 ms·

You mean the researchers often did not disclose the funding? Again, why is this even news? Apparently, tomorrow the WSJ will be reporting that Google lobbies.

jgalt212 9y ago
So you're saying the source of funding for publicly published research is not relevant? If so, that's not a reasonable/common position to take.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  Not at all, I'm saying that as that's pretty much the standard across the entire industry, it is weird why this is even news. A more appropriate headline would be "Shocking news: Google is a for-profit business, and it acts like one!". Move along folks, nothing to see here. I guess yesterday was a slow news day before all the Trump Jr. stuff came out.
  - jgalt212 9y ago
    way to not concede a point
blub 9y ago
News is what is, now what you deem interesting or newsworthy. It's news because at some level many people don't find what's happening ethical, even if a lot of companies do it. Lobbying is a great example of another morally dubious activity a lot of companies engage in. You're trying very hard to make these things seem standard and not open to objection. They should be scrutinised.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  >They should be scrutinised. I'm sure they should. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/... Sarah T. Roberts said she doesn’t understand why she was on the list. Sure, she told The Chronicle, she was a Google fellow in 2009, but that meant a $7,000 award to cover her expenses during a 10-week stint working in Washington, D.C., for the American Library Association. Why that 2009 fellowship would be relevant to a 2015 paper on information privacy — in which Ms. Roberts, an assistant professor of information studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, was listed as the fourth author — is not clear to her. More important, she said, she didn’t receive any money from the technology giant in connection to that paper. And if the advocacy group’s concern was that she had benefited from Google in the past, that information is on her curriculum vitae. "What else would they like me to do?" she asked. "I think it’s pretty irresponsible."

jgalt212 9y ago

So you're saying the source of funding for publicly published research is not relevant? If so, that's not a reasonable/common position to take.

ucaetano 9y ago
Not at all, I'm saying that as that's pretty much the standard across the entire industry, it is weird why this is even news. A more appropriate headline would be "Shocking news: Google is a for-profit business, and it acts like one!". Move along folks, nothing to see here. I guess yesterday was a slow news day before all the Trump Jr. stuff came out.
- jgalt212 9y ago
  way to not concede a point

blub 9y ago

News is what is, now what you deem interesting or newsworthy. It's news because at some level many people don't find what's happening ethical, even if a lot of companies do it. Lobbying is a great example of another morally dubious activity a lot of companies engage in. You're trying very hard to make these things seem standard and not open to objection. They should be scrutinised.

ucaetano 9y ago
>They should be scrutinised. I'm sure they should. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/... Sarah T. Roberts said she doesn’t understand why she was on the list. Sure, she told The Chronicle, she was a Google fellow in 2009, but that meant a $7,000 award to cover her expenses during a 10-week stint working in Washington, D.C., for the American Library Association. Why that 2009 fellowship would be relevant to a 2015 paper on information privacy — in which Ms. Roberts, an assistant professor of information studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, was listed as the fourth author — is not clear to her. More important, she said, she didn’t receive any money from the technology giant in connection to that paper. And if the advocacy group’s concern was that she had benefited from Google in the past, that information is on her curriculum vitae. "What else would they like me to do?" she asked. "I think it’s pretty irresponsible."