4 ms·

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 Goog

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.
- fenwick67 9y ago
  It's similar to a newspaper shilling out to advertisers and refusing to publish any bad stories about them. It's not illegal, but it's bad practice, and puts the integrity of the publisher and the sponsor into question. I think that's all people are saying.

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.
fenwick67 9y ago
It's similar to a newspaper shilling out to advertisers and refusing to publish any bad stories about them. It's not illegal, but it's bad practice, and puts the integrity of the publisher and the sponsor into question. I think that's all people are saying.