4 ms·

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 bi

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.
waisbrot 9y ago
The article wasn't suggesting that Google has to fund its critics. The article was describing how a theoretically independent think-tank was compromised by Google. First Google offers you money for the work you're already doing. Once you become dependent on that money, they can threaten to take it away. The problem is that the only way to be truly independent is to take no money from corporations. But any group that does that will be crushed by similar groups who _do_ accept corporate money (and are thus compromised).
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Have I awoken in an alternate universe? Once 21 million dollars was accepted there isn't an "independence" theoretical or otherwise. It's ludicrous to existentially attack the company giving this money and expect not be removed from the group. If you want true independence it has to be something like citizen grass roots funding. And even that probably has a bias. But it would be a start. Expecting anything but special interest once corporate money is involved just is unrealistic.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Eh, I don't know why you're being hammered for saying this. Both your comments seem pretty accurate. And it's not like you were being crass or something. I wonder if the idea simply bothers people?
    - notyourday 9y ago
      > I wonder if the idea simply bothers people? This idea bothers people because it calls in question everything that they believe in -- in the West the so called educated population believes in the idea of abstract "good" and idea of people/entities being "good" compared to the extreme cynicism coming from say Eastern Europeans. In my, not very humble, opinion it is caused by Western population of the last sixty years living a rather easy and lazy life, which breeds a total disassociation with say possible drivers other people. So they want to destroy everything and anything that pierces their bubble. In HN it means flagging/downvoting such articles/opinions.

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.

waisbrot 9y ago

The article wasn't suggesting that Google has to fund its critics. The article was describing how a theoretically independent think-tank was compromised by Google. First Google offers you money for the work you're already doing. Once you become dependent on that money, they can threaten to take it away. The problem is that the only way to be truly independent is to take no money from corporations. But any group that does that will be crushed by similar groups who _do_ accept corporate money (and are thus compromised).

mythrwy 9y ago
Have I awoken in an alternate universe? Once 21 million dollars was accepted there isn't an "independence" theoretical or otherwise. It's ludicrous to existentially attack the company giving this money and expect not be removed from the group. If you want true independence it has to be something like citizen grass roots funding. And even that probably has a bias. But it would be a start. Expecting anything but special interest once corporate money is involved just is unrealistic.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Eh, I don't know why you're being hammered for saying this. Both your comments seem pretty accurate. And it's not like you were being crass or something. I wonder if the idea simply bothers people?
  - notyourday 9y ago
    > I wonder if the idea simply bothers people? This idea bothers people because it calls in question everything that they believe in -- in the West the so called educated population believes in the idea of abstract "good" and idea of people/entities being "good" compared to the extreme cynicism coming from say Eastern Europeans. In my, not very humble, opinion it is caused by Western population of the last sixty years living a rather easy and lazy life, which breeds a total disassociation with say possible drivers other people. So they want to destroy everything and anything that pierces their bubble. In HN it means flagging/downvoting such articles/opinions.