5 ms·

Like I commented elsewhere - why is this evil? Because Google didn't want to pay its own critics? Open Markets is free, as they themselves admit, to continue th

• space_fountain 9y ago
  Because Google is big enough to make a big impact on the global conversation. By funding only groups supportive of them they can provide the illusion of unified support.
  • apoverton 9y ago
    I'm curious if anyone has examples of large companies willfully funding organizations that are critical of them. Google plays a huge role in our lives, but it is also a corporation that has a duty to its shareholders. The EU's decision has an impact on their profits that has the potential to affect their future revenue opportunities. I'd see an issue if Google was intentionally burying information from this group, but choosing not to fund them seems like a perfectly rational, fair thing to do.
    • bhouston 9y ago
      The issue is that this is an important think tank and it can now no longer involve anyone who isn't pro-Google. If Google does this for a few key think-tanks then it runs these opinions out of the mainstream. So it is an effective technique, smart as well but executed poorly in this case.
    • pckhoi 9y ago
      It's not justified and fair just because it benefits Google and it's shareholders. By this logic I shouldn't go to jail if I rob a bank.
• okket 9y ago
  Why is this evil? That is easy: Just image Google were as dominant as it is now - but a German (or even Chinese) company. I guess there were regulations, taxations and tariffs in about zero seconds. In case of China, even national security regulations.
• bhouston 9y ago
  It is a moderately important think tank and the position taken by this subgroup was reasonable. But now it is considered to be out of bounds of polite company because of Google. Sort of hamfisted on the part of Google though. Being pro-Google is now a requirement for getting funding from a democratic aligned think-tank.
• forapurpose 9y ago
  > ... why is this evil? Because Google didn't want to pay its own critics? This seems like a rhetorical argument that conflates power and self-interest with morality. Google certainly has the power to do it, and certainly anyone can see its self-interest, but that doesn't mean it should; power and self-interest are not the only factors. There is clear harm to society if the powerful use their power to limit public criticism, and that's a well-known, ongoing problem in the U.S. (among other places). > Open Markets is free, as they themselves admit, to continue their work elsewhere. The money must come from somebody with power and resources. They are free-as-in-speech to move on, but not as-in-beer.
• maxander 9y ago
  It's not as if Open Markets were a bunch of Google employees. If some rich guy calls up your employer and leans on them so that they fire you, you're still "free to continue your work elsewhere," but you would still be pretty upset. That's exactly what happened to these guys. Big companies controlling think tanks is, of course, nothing new. But we tend to hold tech icons like Google to a higher standard, and trust them much further, than we do with oil companies or banks.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • uoaei 9y ago
    > But we tend to hold tech icons like Google to a higher standard, and trust them much further, than we do with oil companies or banks. We have to if we want to overcome the cognitive dissonance involved with trusting them with our data in the face of such news as that linked above. If we can't trust them to play nice on this, how can we expect them to protect our privacy from snoops?
• cmac2992 9y ago
  I'm way less concerned about Google and more concerned about the integrity of these think tanks that generate a good amount of public policy
• bassman9000 9y ago
  It is disingenous to negate the dangers of such powerful organization being able to prevent any negative opinion about them. Or interested.