25 ms·

Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

• idlewords 9y ago
  In a tweet, New America claims this is false, and will release a statement soon: https://twitter.com/slaughteram/status/902874942433263616 https://twitter.com/slaughteram/status/902874942433263616
  • dleslie 9y ago
    Of course they do. Their credibility is on the line, and much has already been lost; they will forever be that group who is beholden to Google.
    • tptacek 9y ago
      Maybe wait until after the announcement to judge its veracity.
      • frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Ah usually I'd give the benefit of the doubt, but look at that email sent by Slaughter. Besides it's not just Barry Lynn departing, it's the whole Open Markets program aka anyone in a position to question Google's market dominance. The statement by New America is going to be sufficiently vague to avoid saying that there was any connection between Google's funding and the cutting of this program but the email lays out quite clearly that's exactly what it was. Sometimes it's better to ignore the PR.
      • tanderson92 9y ago
        As expected, Slaughter's statement doesn't challenge any of the facts ("false") reported. It is, however, a textbook non-denial denial.
  • defen 9y ago
    Prediction: strenuous (truthful) denials that Google/Alphabet were in any way involved with this. Left unexamined: the role Eric Schmidt played in his personal capacity. For people to argue about: whether there is a difference between Eric Schmidt working in his personal capacity to benefit Google/Alphabet vs Eric Schmidt acting as an official representative of Google/Alphabet
    • tptacek 9y ago
      Pretty solid prediction.
      • defen 9y ago
        https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press-releases/new-americas-response-new-york-times/ https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press-releases/new-am...
  • rst 9y ago
    Here's their statement, which doesn't actually dispute any of the facts in the article: https://twitter.com/NewAmerica/status/902929634592948224 https://twitter.com/NewAmerica/status/902929634592948224 In a subsequent tweet, Slaughter (the head of New America) claims that the quotes were accurate, "but quotes are taken way out of context and interpretation is wrong". She hasn't yet said how the interpretation was wrong, or in what context the leader of a group of independent scholars could properly say "We are trying to expand our relationship with Google ... just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others".
• ktta 9y ago
  Is there any way one can find the list of organizations that Google (aka Alphabet) has been funding? Annual investor reports?
  • seanf 9y ago
    https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html
    • ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Google's NetPAC is kinda amazing, as a thing, I'm still stunned our political system allows something that just straight up feels like money laundering. (From a "we need to route this money through someone else so it is legal" standpoint.) This isn't a thing unique to Google, it's just a thing that amazes me is considered okay. Corporations can't directly give money to candidates, but Google pays it's employees, who 'donate' it to NetPAC, which is a Google-controlled entity which can give money to candidates.
• matt4077 9y ago
  90 points in less than an hour. This guy's fight for his right to be wrong is surprisingly energising to this community. I'm even sympathetic to the criticism of Google. But for the life of me I can't figure out why this particular employment dispute gets this sort of billing... Arguably the US government (an entity endowed with something literally called "the monopoly on violence") just pardoned someone who build an actual concentration camp (his words) in the middle of the US. And had his goons start criminal investigations against journalists. And, you know, continued actually killing people after being told by a court that he should maybe not do that. Now the victims were mostly brown and did not have enough stock options to coast for the next decade, so it maybe somewhat hard to relate to for the community. But no matter how hard I try, I can't see reason why one story is running to the top every second day, and others are nowhere to be found.
  • kbart 9y ago
    Maybe because here's a technical community. I'm much more interested in news about leading tech companies than some local crime lord in a foreign country.
    • zentiggr 9y ago
      I suppose Maricopa County could in some ways be considered foreign territory, but bastard Joe was an American county sheriff in an American state...
      • kbart 9y ago
        You do realize that "foreign" depends on a perspective? What is "foreign" for me isn't necessarily "foreign" for you. HN readers are from all over the world, and I'm sure much more of them knows what Google is and thus more interested in related news than some "bastard Joe from Maricopa County".
  • seanf 9y ago
    This article is not about the memo guy.
• mondoshawan 9y ago
  I'm not normally a grammar pedant, but i had to reread the first two opening paragraphs several times before I understood what was going on: > The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. Semicolons aren't glorified commas. Stop it. Bad! Bad! :-p
  • darrenf 9y ago
    Semicolons are valid (especially) when the list items themselves contain commas - such as "its parent company's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt".
  • davidmr 9y ago
    The comma in the second element allows—I would even say requires—one to separate elements of a list with semicolons. I don’t have a copy of the NYT Style Guide, but I just consulted my Chicago Style guide, and it is explicitly permitted. Grammarians have spoken!
    • sfgjsdf 9y ago
      You have to admit that it's a confusing sentence though!
      • davidmr 9y ago
        I absolutely do. I probably would have worded it differently.
  • cjbillington 9y ago
    The Oatmeal isn't necessarily an authority, but explicitly lists "use semicolons as a super comma!" as one of their uses: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon
• megous 9y ago
  Hmm, so leftist ideas are OK to be supported, except when they are applied to the said corporation. Fun. :)
  • DarkKomunalec 9y ago
    Left and right ideas are just stepping stones to profit. After all, the 'left-leaning' Google sure isn't pushing for unions, only for what will benefit them.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • dang 9y ago
    Would you please not post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News, and especially not on divisive topics? If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• fairpx 9y ago
  > “There are simply fewer groups that are available to speak up about Google’s activities that threaten online privacy,” Mr. Rotenberg said. “The groups that should be speaking up aren’t.” Google has been doing strange things for a long time and despite that there actually are a good amount of groups speaking out against them, they stick to their guns and oust or bribe anyone in their way. The first time ever they've stumbled on a worthy opponent is when they started getting sanctioned by the EU.
  • throwaway0071 9y ago
    > bribe anyone in their way Do you have a source for this claim?
    • derping69 9y ago
      Eric Schmidt set up a data company for the sole purpose of getting Hillary elected. Google also had 427 white house visits during the Obama Admin. Not sure what your definition of bribe is but they are as tight with DC as any wall street bank https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/ https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...
      • euyyn 9y ago
        > Not sure what your definition of bribe is lol
      • kbenson 9y ago
        > Not sure what your definition of bribe is Well, if it's the actual definition[1], then you didn't exactly prove anything. 1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribe https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribe
        • derping69 9y ago
          Definition from your link 1. "money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust" 2."something that serves to induce or influence" Eric Schmidt spending millions to create groundwork isn't a favor? You think Google wasn't trying to influence the Obama white house during those 427 visits? from wikileaks "He’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the afternoon. I think it’s worth doing"
• ebola1717 9y ago
  > “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points,” Ms. Slaughter wrote in an email to Mr. Lynn, urging him to “just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others.” That was a real kicker for me. This seems like pretty blatant corporate censorship. Unfortunately, it's hard to make the public care about a situation like this that's so out of view.
  • gthtjtkt 9y ago
    Yeah, she's talking out both sides of her mouth. First, she says his work is imperiling their funding (referring to Google's complaint about its positions not being represented). Then, she says his work has nothing to do with his firing.
    • nerpderp83 9y ago
      When combined it averages out to a coherent honest message. That you are being let go because the content of your message puts a funding source at risk.
    • humanrebar 9y ago
      It sounds like, "I think this person is good at their job. Unfortunately we can't afford to have someone else with these views in our organization. I would recommend another organization hire this person."
  • kbenson 9y ago
    It needn't be corporate censorship to have the exact same outcome. If Google is upset with an article, or thinks it's not fairly representing all sides, they are going to contact the organization and say so. They don't have to threaten removing funding, the indication that they were unhappy could have been impetus enough for Slaughter to act proactively. Even if Google was thinking of removing funding, there's nothing wrong with that either (they have the right to fund or not fund what they want). The problem is if Google dictated Slaughter's actions, which we don't know for sure, but she says they didn't (but she would say that anyway, as saying otherwise would imperil her position and the organization as a whole). Truthfully, I'm not so sure that this isn't being played up and portrayed a specific way by the media. I was going to say the problem was that the New America Foundation had accepted too much funding from one source, but since Google has only funded them to the tune of about 21 million since 1999, unless the vast majority of that has come in recent years, that funding probably accounts for fairly little of their operating costs on a year to year basis, since they employ more than 200 people. Even if Google had given all 21 million in the last yea alone, that would basically fund all the employees at $100k salaries and pay for building costs. I suspect quite a few salaries are much higher, and there's a lot more costs than that, so I'm not sure Google's funding really amounted to a huge amount when spread over many years.
• 21 9y ago
  Obligatory Taleb comment: "Think tanks are natural lobbies w/a facade of "research" Their cover allows them to censor dissent from monoculture" https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/902859415375798274 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/902859415375798274 OT: I'm curious how many hours will this post survive on the front page
  • fairpx 9y ago
    We might have to make sure the upvotes are stronger than the downvotes :)
    • bryanrasmussen 9y ago
      I did my bit.
    • koolba 9y ago
      Posts don't have downvotes anyway. Only comments do. The real "fight" is upvotes and substantive comments vs. people blindly flagging articles they disagree with.
  • wodenokoto 9y ago
    In Denmark we have two major economic think tanks, that are respectively self-declared right wing and left wing and they continually release results supporting expanded welfare and the other expanded free trade / lower tax. It is ridiculous that either is taken serious.
    • tachyonbeam 9y ago
      People have confirmation bias. They love when there is a "credible" source putting out results that are in agreement with the position they already hold. They can then use this "evidence" to justify their position. Everyone is guilty of this to some extent. The only way to mitigate confirmation bias is to be willing to entertain the idea that it affects you too.
    • ThomPete 9y ago
      They aren't though. They are used by the political parties but no one takes them seriously.
• zentiggr 9y ago
  And we are shown again that Google is now large enough and has enough enough influence that it's only serious opponent is the EU. A continent. Do no evil indeed.
  • cjcole 9y ago
    If corporations are sociopaths (http://politicalloudmouth.com/why-publicly-traded-corporations-behave-like-sociopaths/ http://politicalloudmouth.com/why-publicly-traded-corporatio...), imagine the fun when one becomes too powerful for a merely national government to check.
  • appleflaxen 9y ago
    [pedantic] the EU is not a continent: it's a trade bloc.
    • kbart 9y ago
      To be more pedantic, it's more than just a trade block, it's also a political union.
    • paganel 9y ago
      There's also politics involved, all of my country's laws (including the non-trade related ones) had to comply with the EU-wide laws before my country was permitted to enter the union. One such famous non trade-related example is that if you want to be part of the EU you're not allowed to have death penalty as a punishment in your penal code.
    • the_duke 9y ago
      The trade union is just one part of the EU, it is much more than that.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • squarefoot 9y ago
    The EU has no chance, as does any country in the world. Google will simply buy one nation at a time just by offering services to people through governments, which will turn into more exposure (votes) for the politician in power who makes the deal. That politician will of course never bite the hand who feeds him/her. "Thanks to our last deal with Google, now we have fresh water and comfy chairs in every public transportation bus, and the ticket price was cut half!". "Thanks to Google Books, now all kids whose family income is under X will receive a free ebook reader and free school books". ...etc.
• mythrwy 9y ago
  It's early so not sure I'm reading this correctly, but it appears Google funded a group, then one of the members posted a statement applauding the recent 2.7 billion dollar fine against Google and that member was subsequently removed from the group? Well duh! Criticize Google all you like. But does anyone really think companies have an obligation to fund their critics? Or that groups receiving such funding have an obligation to retain critics?
  • jackmott 9y ago
    then don't pretend you are a think tank. you are a pr firm, paid to say whatever benefits your clients.
    • mythrwy 9y ago
      It's not an either/or situation. Less like a PR firm, more like not sawing off the branch you are standing on.
    • jerf 9y ago
      Well, as others have pointed out, it's not hard to read "think tank" as "pr firm". You ought to love the amount of money the $POLITICAL_ALIGNMENT_YOU_HATE spends on "think tanks"; they consume vast piles of money and to a first approximation accomplish absolutely nothing. (A bit closer look and I wouldn't say they are completely achievement-free, but it's still a terrible way to spend money.)
      • rhizome 9y ago
        Well, as others have pointed out, it's not hard to read "think tank" as "pr firm". Sure, but it raises the question why there's a separate "think tank" term, even more why think tanks refer to themselves as such.
        • jerf 9y ago
          Oh, that's easy; neither they nor the people donating to them want to think of them as pr firms. Think Tanks are so much more, you know, Think Tanky. I think such wonderful, glorious thoughts that people pay me just to think of these things, and write them down. That's way better than being in grubby PR. That's, like, a middle class job. This is a real job, that's, like, hard & shit, and I'm uniquely qualified on account of the rare and distinguished quality of my thoughts.
• howscrewedami 9y ago
  Title looks like something generated by a Recurrent Neural Network.
  • mondoshawan 9y ago
    I'm inclined to agree with the way the article was written. It was very poorly edited.
• dontnotice 9y ago
  The omitted context here is that the lobbying against Google is much larger than Google's countermeasures.
  • dhimes 9y ago
    Can you elaborate just a bit? For example, do you mean in the EU?
  • ktta 9y ago
    Lobbying against Google? I would be interested in looking at your sources.
    • pgeorgi 9y ago
      There are couple of organizations such as http://fairsearch.org http://fairsearch.org and http://i-comp.org/ http://i-comp.org/ that some consider to be (or have been) lobbying vehicles of other major IT companies against Google, especially in the EU.
• CPLX 9y ago
  This isn't a problem with Google, it's a problem with the establishment left in the United States. There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. The reasons why are many, but of course they typically distill down to the incredible power of money to influence people, of which this is an example. The side-effects of there being no credible labor party in our political system manifests, in part, in the extreme volatility we see in electoral politics.
  • dublinben 9y ago
    In your estimation, are you placing the very active and loud anti-corporate voices in this country outside of American politics, or merely denying that they are genuine?
    • hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
      Those are not the only two options. I believe there are anti corporate forces in American politics, and they are genuine, but, by and large, they are far too small and disorganized to have a a significant effect on American politics. This is in large contrast to anti-corporate forces in much of Europe. Bernie has/is changing that, but even then I would argue the main power structures haven't changed.
      • adventured 9y ago
        > Bernie has/is changing that, but even then I would argue the main power structures haven't changed. Bernie isn't / hasn't changed anything and won't. Sanders comes at the problem from a position that is considered Socialist (even though he's only a Socialist in name for the headlines), which will keep him forever in a cordoned off box. The last force in US politics with any influence in that regard, was Ralph Nader. He accomplished greater than ten times what Sanders has or will (and given his age at this point, the clock is ticking) when it comes to anti-corporate power checking. The Democrats lit Nader on fire and buried him politically for opposing their establishment one too many times.
        • 9y ago
• fowlerpower 9y ago
  The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days. It is a little unfair to think this problem exists only within Google. Time and time again we are reminded why corporations will evolve to become as greedy and as protective of their turf expansive of their power and monopolistic as they can get, even if good people are running them. It is the system itself that does this, corporations evolve to survive and to thrive. That in of itself isn't a bad thing but you need checks and balances. Things like the Supreme Court saying that Corporations are people or all the money pouring into our political process those are things that have to change. Even the best of them will eventually become the worst of them. Google is now evil for sure, no doubt about that, but there have been and there will be many others.
  • kushti 9y ago
    But others didn't start with "Do No Evil" motto (transformed now into "Do the Right Thing").
    • notyourday 9y ago
      It really should say: "Lay with the dogs, wake up with the fleas"
      • KGIII 9y ago
        To be fair, it doesn't say for whom it is the right thing.
        • deleted 9y ago
          [deleted]
    • bistro 9y ago
      Google's motto was never "do no evil". Previously, it was "don't be evil".
      • _pmf_ 9y ago
• EternalData 9y ago
  The reality is that thinktank as corporate patronage is a trend that extended long before Google -- it's a problem we have to face where money can buy ideas. It just so happens that it's Google or Facebook who has the overwhelming share of money as opposed to Exxon.
• notyourday 9y ago
  Personally, I'm glad Google is behaving this way: it is tiring to tell people over and over again that one should not put absolute trust into any company and be met with bewilderment and references to the "Don't be evil" motto ( the one that they finally got rid of).
  • SquareWheel 9y ago
    >( the one that they finally got rid of ) https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• turk183 9y ago
  I just spent the better part of a week getting myself off of GMail. I'm still using Chrome at work for development, but have Brave browser for personal use now. I'm using DuckDuckGo for searches. I have an iPhone, but honestly, I don't trust Apple to not act like total dumbasses and so I am now lamenting the consolidation in the smart phone space. Google and these other companies are blowing themselves up over idiotic politics. It may be a trickle today, but it doesn't take much for a trickle to become a raging river of people migrating off your ecosystem. Are you listening Google? Or are you so tone deaf and smug that you can't hear anymore? Maybe it's time anyways--Google and Facebook are so lame. They are so anathema to what the original Internet was all about. Hint: It's about humanity and open access to ideas, not closed plantations with no diversity of thought allowed.
  • itg 9y ago
    What email service did you switch to? I'm thinking of doing the same.
    • sweep4r 9y ago
      I personally switched to ProtonMail, but I lament there's no IMAP access. If you don't mind paying you can use FastMail
      • macintux 9y ago
        Big fan of FastMail. Roughly $50 a year to control my email destiny? No brainer.
    • ColonelBlimp 9y ago
      You may want to take a look at the list here https://www.privacytools.io/#email https://www.privacytools.io/#email for alternative email providers with higher privacy standards.
    • asidiali 9y ago
      Just switched to Fastmail and so far has been very easy and simple.
• cisanti 9y ago
  If U.S or E.U would want to break up Google, how would it realistically work? I hope we see that happening, the company has become a monster and can literally tell the world what to think and how to feel.
  • islanderfun 9y ago
    OT: I agree Google has become monster-ish. But when this talk comes up, I can't help but think Amazon is just as if not more of a monster. Especially the employee horror stories and now slashing Whole Food prices. While its awesome for it's customers, I'm worried about long term effects. /r
    • cisanti 9y ago
      But Google has much more global power. Amazon is in Europe and other places too, but nowhere strong as in the United States. Google, on the other hand, has most of the world under its arm, besides China and maybe Russia.
    • gaius 9y ago
      I can easily choose to avoid Amazon - they aren't seeding the entire internet with sly tracking technologies. They are a logistics business that makes money by moving stuff from warehouses to customers. Similarly Apple wants to sell you an iPhone and a laptop and Microsoft wants to sell you an office suite and a database. Real companies with real products and services. But Google's ONLY business is stealing and selling personal data.
      • kromem 9y ago
        Really? Go ahead and avoid anything hosted on or using AWS. Might be a bit difficult, and you may reconsider Amazon's scale relative to Google.
        • gaius 9y ago
          A fair point but I've not seen even a hint that Amazon themselves are tracking me across AWS hosted services. Do you have any evidence or links?
• yuhong 9y ago
  I think the big problem is the ad bubble not Google itself at this point, though these kind of problems still needs to be traced.
• rixed 9y ago
  I have read so many baseless hostility toward Google, especially in France at a time where governments were fighting Google over taxes and newspapers realized they had lost income from advertisements for good, that I now distrust any newspaper article painting the firm in a bad light.
• abpavel 9y ago
  You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain
  • rangibaby 9y ago
    I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy. - Stalin
• microcolonel 9y ago
  LoL, this "Think Tank" is literally a propaganda office; but since NYT largely shares their political biases, they're not willing to admit that it was a dishonest venture before it was directly influenced by Eric Schmidt.
  • blfr 9y ago
    this "Think Tank" is literally a propaganda office Is that really different from any other think tank or the NYT itself?
    • creaghpatr 9y ago
      NYT's David Brooks is on their board of directors so not really. Might want to see the other members as well. https://www.newamerica.org/board/ https://www.newamerica.org/board/
      • sweep4r 9y ago
        Wow, the CEO is the son of George Soros. This think tank is like the reincarnation of the devil.
        • dang 9y ago
          We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
      • tomjakubowski 9y ago
        I rarely hear the NYT described as sharing the political biases of David Brooks, their employer-employee relationship notwithstanding. Brooks presumably has some influence on New America with that position, so I'm curious how this squares with microcolonel's assessment.
• Corristowolf 9y ago
  I've already switched my browsers to Firefox Nightly and Brave, search engines to DuckDuckGo. Only my gmail and android remain. Time to switch. I remember a time when the holy grail of IT was working at Goolag.. sorry Google. Now, I'm not even interested in them anymore.
• redm 9y ago
  The key point of the article is this: “Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings,” Mr. Lynn said. “People are so afraid of Google now.” Honestly, the only thing shocking about any of this is that people thought Google was "special". The reality is, when its revenues are threatened, it's going to reach like any other corporation, which it should. Google has its tentacles into almost everything, and you should be concerned/cautious about lock in, abuse and market competition challenges that go with it. I personally find it a challenge every day to avoid using Google Services. I use Bing instead of Google, but I'm locked into Gmail (which is a great product), Google Drive (A great product), Google Maps (a great product), etc.
  • freehunter 9y ago
    Are you actually locked into those services? I decided to switch away from Google when they mixed up my inbox with someone else's and started sending my email to someone who quickly used the mistake to issue password resets on many of my accounts, and it was easier than I thought. With Gmail, I just forward my mail to my Outlook.com account, and I switched my email address on as many sites as I could to use my Outlook.com email address. Works just fine. Office Online with OneDrive is a fantastic product. Sure it costs money, but if you're not paying for a product, you're not "locked in". Download your docs in Office format and save them to OneDrive, done. I actually switched to Bing Maps a long time prior to this because Google Maps has such poor performance on every computer I use it on. Google Maps has the far superior place search, but Bing Maps works better as an actual map in my experience. The only Google service I use regularly is Google Translate, because there really is no comparison.
    • mhermher 9y ago
      And YouTube, where the competition is not even close as far as content. It's really the one irreplaceable Google product.
      • ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Like the Play Store/Android. In a space where content is king, monopolies win big. FWIW, YouTube is actually the only Google product I allow to store my history and recommend me stuff, because it's the only place I find it actually helpful or valuable, and the privacy risk of that data is of low value to me.
• eighthnate 9y ago
  > There's no genuine, credible anti-corporate voice in American politics. That's because politics in the US requires money and no politician can rise to the mainstream without money. Not only that, if the capital interests saw you rising in local/state elections, then they could fund your opponents and whittle you down. We are a nation ruled by money/capital. NK is a nation ruled by the kim family. The chinese are a nation ruled by the communist power. Someone in the US going against corporate interests has as promising a political future as a north korean politician railing against the kim family or a chinese politician going against the communist party. Everyone, including the politicians, have to play by the rules of the system. Look at the past election, both trump and clinton were pro-corporate/capital politicians. Hillary was probably even more pro-corporations/neo-liberalism than trump. But democrats will argue that hillary cared about the lowly workers. But can you really blame the clintons, trumps, obamas, bushes or any other politician in the US? They are just playing the game within the system. Ultimately, in the US, both the republican and democratic parties serve one master - the capital owners. The US is really a 1 party nation if you look beyond the silly social issues that the republican and democratic play off of each other to distract the masses.
  • blfr 9y ago
    First, Trump was completely outspent by Clinton and won. Money follows the likely winner and this weird political betting market usually gets it right. It's also hard to say that he served the GOP. It very much looked like the elephant reluctantly did what Trump told it to do. Second, Trump campaigned on lowering immigration and tariffs, by far the most anti-corporate policies American president supported in the living memory. Both of your points are seriously weakened by the 2016 elections.
    • freehunter 9y ago
      The 2016 election is a extreme outlier for many reasons, so it's difficult to look at it and make any meaningful conclusions in this regard.
      • corporateslave3 9y ago
• Tistel 9y ago
  Google might want to look at the history of Standard Oil and the old US wide singular Bell Telephone. If you get so big that you can abuse your power, you will probably start to do so (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely ...). They tend to get broken up into less powerful pieces. How you break up Google, I don't know. They are an ad tech company with the best search engine and a bunch of money loosing ancillary activities.
  • ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    If I had to take a quick pass: Search/Gmail/Drive, Android/Play, and Chrome. The largest monopolizing power Google has is it's control of platforms, which can drive it's services. Between setting up defaults to their own products and including tight integrations nobody else can match, this is Google's biggest advantage today. Chrome and Android also actually each have ways they could independently be monetized, Chrome via search placement auction like Firefox, Android via licensing from OEMs. Gmail and Drive and such predominantly need to be ad-funded to survive, I suspect, and I think allowing an online services company to run ads is fundamentally okay. The monopolizing power of losing Chrome and Android would over time relegate them to losing monopoly status by default.
  • frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Turn their platforms into utilities, take the other bits and scatter them into different companies.
  • quickben 9y ago
    These are different times.
  • forapurpose 9y ago
    > Google might want to look at the history of Standard Oil and the old US wide singular Bell Telephone. Those companies made their owners very, very wealthy, and the companies' decedents remain extremely wealthy and powerful. The CEO of one of the decedents, Exxon, is now the U.S. Secretary of State, for example. Google may think that's a very acceptable downside risk.
  • 9y ago
• coding123 9y ago
  I've been saying this for about 15 years, but the moment Eric joined google the phrase "Don't be evil" mostly disappeared from almost every location they used to publish the phrase.
  • trophycase 9y ago
    I can't believe Schmidt is allowed to be kept around. The dude is clearly evil.
• Grazester 9y ago
  If Google is paying for this think tank I dont see what the heck is the problem. Its their or partially theirs to do as they wish.
• BeetleB 9y ago
  There is really very little content in this article. It reads like a classic case of "Write an essay in N words" and you find yourself finishing at M << N words, and just add random fluff to fulfill the requirements. The whole premise is a bit flawed - it's putting most of the blame on Google. When an "independent" organization takes on average $1M/yr from any entity, and structure themselves such that losing that money is a big concern, then they've played an equal role in this mess. It's almost as if the article is trying to make it Google's obligation to continue funding, which is a ridiculous proposition in itself. >This year, it has donated to 170 such groups, according to Google’s voluntary disclosures on Google’s website. While Google does not indicate how much cash was donated, the number of beneficiaries has grown exponentially since it started disclosing its donations in 2010, when it gave to 45 groups. I could equally well call it linear. Two data points does not an exponential growth make.
  • ksk 9y ago
    >The whole premise is a bit flawed - it's putting most of the blame on Google. The premise is that Eric Schmidt's displeasure lead to some people getting fired. I don't know how else you could make that argument without blaming Google when the entire argument is about blaming Google.
    • BeetleB 9y ago
      >The premise is that Eric Schmidt's displeasure lead to some people getting fired. I don't know how else you could make that argument without blaming Google when the entire argument is about blaming Google. I'm not saying Google is not culpable. I'm saying they're no more culpable than the folks at the think tank who are dependent on Google. If I run a business where I take in huge chunks of money from a company every year, and adjust my spending and budgets to rely on said money, then I stopped being independent. In the business world, no one would have any sympathy for me if the company I relied on suddenly decided to stop supporting me. I put myself into this hole. Why is it any different here? The think tank stopped being independent long before any of this happened. They are equal partners, and deserve an equal amount of blame. They are definitely not the victims here. The problem isn't that Google is making negative overtures to them with an implied threat of defunding them in the future. The problem is that they shouldn't have been funding them in the first place. As such, it can easily be argued that dropping funding is the right thing to do.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• ex3xu 9y ago
  I recently picked up a book called, "No Wall Too High", the translated man who escaped from a Chinese labor camp under Mao Zedong. In this book, during his time in a re-education camp in Lijiang, the author relates seeing the story of Yang Shukang -- a man whose crime was simply writing a letter to the central leadership in Beijing saying that two thousand people had starved to death in his town of Jiuhe during the great leap forward. The author tells the story of seeing Shukang stand up in front of the entire prison and refuse to "confess his crimes" -- and was summarily spat on and beaten to near death by a group of party zealots. Tortured this way for three more days, Shukang hanged himself on the fourth day after writing characters on the wall, among which -- "The victims of the Great Leap Forward will live forever in the hearts of the people!" We must not forget the victims of the past, and we must remember that we are less than two generations removed from men being killed simply for telling the truth when the facts do not align with political convenience. The intolerance of dissenting voices and contradictory information is a dangerous slippery slope on the fall from a free and healthy society.
  • jcoffland 9y ago
    Great story but I fail to see the connection. This is a case of don't shit where you eat. If you want to speak out against Google then don't belong to an organization funded by Google.
    • 21 9y ago
      That organization doesn't say on it's website "we are a Google PR firm", or "we will never criticize Google", they imply they are an "independent think-tank not influenced by money".
      • waisbrot 9y ago
        And this isn't a Google-created group where you'd dig into their founders/records a little and be able to see that they're a Google PR firm. It's just that Google (among other companies?) has successfully given them funding to a degree where they can no longer afford to annoy Google.
• polishTar 9y ago
  The response from new america seems to indicate there's more to this story: https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press-releases/new-americas-response-new-york-times/ https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press-releases/new-am...
  • masonic 9y ago
    The original June 27 press release: https://www.newamerica.org/open-markets/press-releases/open-markets-applauds-european-commissions-finding-against-google-abuse-dominance/ https://www.newamerica.org/open-markets/press-releases/open-...
• jcoffland 9y ago
  The conflict of interest here was caused by the think tank accepting money from Google in the first place. Google does not have to do or say anything after that and still they will exert influence. The New Yorkers complaint seems to boil down to Google is too big.
• solracanobra 9y ago
  Slightly terrifying
• keithpeter 9y ago
  Do 'Open Markets' have any kind of Web site or portal? A quick search (Google, Bing &C) reveals little
• Animats 9y ago
  That's not a "think tank". It's a lobby. The spinoff is at "https://citizensagainstmonopoly.org/" https://citizensagainstmonopoly.org/".
• tiggybear 9y ago
  Why is there no SJW outcry over this like there was for James Damore? Why are google employees not threatening to quit their jobs over this? Are the progressive employees at Google only progressive when it comes to gender?
  • dang 9y ago
    Would you please not post generic ideological rants to HN, or unsubstantive comments in general? Those are not what this site is for: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• kemerover 9y ago
  “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab” Is it a joke?
• phonon 9y ago
  https://theintercept.com/2017/08/30/google-funded-think-tank-fired-google-critics-after-they-dared-criticize-google/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/30/google-funded-think-tank... The Intercept reviewed the full termination email sent from Slaughter to Lynn that was cited and quoted in the Times report and found that they were reported and characterized with complete accuracy. The full text does, however, show that Slaughter threatened to make Lynn’s firing more difficult for him and his team should it generate any negative publicity for New America.
• vonnik 9y ago
  I don't find this very shocking or offensive. Pragmatic people don't bite the hand that feeds them. That means that every think tank will have at least one blind spot in the form of its major donor. This is also true of many media outlets. Bloomberg News is very careful when it reports about Michael Bloomberg. The same could be said of many other publications' relationship to their owners. If you don't like the people paying the bills, it's time to start hitting up their rivals for funds...
  • forapurpose 9y ago
    I don't find corruption (to a certain degree) shocking, but it is offensive and should be minimized and we should find ways to reduce it over time. Murder isn't shocking - it happens all the time - but absolutely should be minimized. Do you think it's not a story, that the NY Times shouldn't have published it?
    • vonnik 9y ago
      It is a story. But it's a predictable drama, and the story is just as much about the researcher's naiveté as Google's inevitable reaction. A lot of outrage was circulating about this, and I'm incapable of sharing that outrage in this case.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• 0x7a69 9y ago
  Google needs to be broken up, hard and fast, with bombs.
• Chiba-City 9y ago
  Google is like a reasonable run utility. MS with Office became something like that and did the job too well with XP. Legacy media companies today hate Google, FB or even Craigslist taking away their messaging for dollars relevance. We have been consolidating wood behind legacy family arrows for decades. Google serves global markets efficiently. Here is Nobel Prize winner Robert Shiller explaining pump-dump wagon circling local American economic problems. Younger people forget how NYC and SF attracted educated talent pools when they were relatively CHEAP. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/real-estate-prices-housing-inequality-by-robert-j--shiller-2017-07 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/real-estate-pri...
• cromwellian 9y ago
  I think Google's lobbying overall is the result of being punished early on by regulatory capture of competitors. Look at the threats: * Microsoft funded number backroom whisper campaigns in DC (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-an-anti-google-whisper-campaign-looks-like-2009-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/what-an-anti-google-whisper-c...) * Microsoft and Oracle funded their own Astroturf lobbying groups and think tanks, to tie up the company in lawsuits and investigations (e.g. FairSearch) * Oracle funding numerous shills like Florian Mueller * Carriers and Cable Companies lobbying to demolish net-neutrality * Bills like SOPA. Google used to spend very little on lobbying, and as a result Verizon, Microsoft, Oracle, Comcast, had the undivided attention of Congress. Now to be fair, Microsoft was attacked by its competitors with similar campaigns in the 80s and 90s. It just goes to show you that corporate lobbying can play off people's populist tendencies and weaponize them against competitors. So when you ask, "How could Google give to ALEC", a question Googlers themselves ask, or contribute to conservatives who deny client science, you have to consider that Congress has the industry by the balls. They can threaten regulation or punishment, and then hold fundraisers on pledges to block said regulation. It's a shakedown: "nice business you have there, shame if I'd have to regulate it. By the way, I'm having a fundraising dinner next week" Why would Silicon Valley serve on Trump's advisory councils when many of the members revile Trump on a personal level? Because there's a huge risk making the executive branch an enemy.
  • intended 9y ago
    This is the key reason. Its the market at work - at some point the marginal advantage of investing even a little in lobbying results in more X, (where X can be anything from power to profit). And in a competitive scenario, SOMEONE will do it. Not to mention Even a unhappy incumbent can initiate a lobbying strategy. People in the comments seem to focus a lot on google itself, but this is the way the game is played. Its just that tech is realizing that they can't create utopia because the laws of complex systems still apply.
    • TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > People in the comments seem to focus a lot on google itself, but this is the way the game is played. Just because something is commonly done does not mean that behavior is right. A reason this post is so popular is because people are becoming increasingly aware of the power & capital concentration occurring in this country. Google has for years successfully gave an image of a company capable of rising above the typical sociopathic behavior of other large multinational corporations, and this story helps expose Google for what they really are: just another large corporation.
• honestoHeminway 9y ago
  It was a chance to raise the flame of enlightment. To reflect and discuss, what can be done to rejuvenate competition- if necessary within a company, but instead the bureaucracy within google acted in a self-perservation reflex.
• ajarmst 9y ago
  The only evidence given that the firing was due to pressure from Google is Lynn's statement (which seems to just be his assumption, because he's a critic of Google). There are at least two official statements that it was in fact not Google's pressure. I don't think Google is an any more moral actor than any other corporation, but why would they do something like this, which has basically nothing but downside to them? Despite Lynn's fantasies, I doubt that Google is particularly worried about his voice of criticism, nor stupid enough to think this would silence him. Shouldn't the "disgruntled employee dismissed for cause" theory, which has at least as much evidence as the "lonely voice of criticism silenced by corporate behemoth", be at least entertained?
  • sageikosa 9y ago
    He's not silenced, they just took away the podium that says "sponsored by Google".