5 ms·

Heck of a lot of Dog wagging here over whether or not Google could legally apply the pressure they did. The answer is yes, they could. Great. The issue isn't

by ABCLAW 9y ago

Heck of a lot of Dog wagging here over whether or not Google could legally apply the pressure they did. The answer is yes, they could. Great. The issue isn't whether or not they could. It's whether or not they should be in a position to do so - is the concentration of power required to apply such pressure healthy for society as a whole? It is worth noting that at the time of me making this comment, this is not a single point arguing directly that such concentration is healthy or beneficial.

icebraining 9y ago
But is the concentration of power really at play here? According to sources, New America got $21M total from Google since '99. From their funding page, they got at least $16M from other sources last year alone. Are they really so dependent on Google?
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  >But is the concentration of power really at play here? Yes. The executive chairman of the corporation they receive ~%20 of their revenue from called and told them to get rid of the guy. The guy was gone in two days. This isn't a grey area. [Edited revenue figure]
  - icebraining 9y ago
    they receive >%50 of their revenue Do they? What's the source of that?
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      Misread your comment! Oops. I jumped into New America's filed 990 papers and the number at a first estimate is around 20%. But I haven't added in any personal donations by Eric Schmidt. Perhaps more importantly omitted is the fact that he is the chairman emeritus of the organization.
fauigerzigerk 9y ago
>is the concentration of power required to apply such pressure healthy for society as a whole? No concentration of power is required for a corporation to fire someone it effectively employs.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  This is lazy thinking. Trying to smuggle the power into the concept of 'effective employment' doesn't do much to fix the issue if you're honest about it. You need power to fire people you directly employ, let alone researchers at third party think-tanks. Would google be 'effectively employing' this researcher if their contribution to New America made up less than 2% of their revenues rather than over half?
  - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
    Yes you do need power to do what Google has done. But having the power to control a think-tank of that size does not require an industry to be nearly as concentrated as online advertising currently is. [Edit] Just think about how much you would have to reduce concentration in any industry so that no corporation is large enough to fund a think-tank and have someone fired. Even if you did that, corporations with shared interests could join together to do the same thing one larger corporation would otherwise have done. It wouldn't be the first time.

by ABCLAW 9y ago

icebraining 9y ago

But is the concentration of power really at play here? According to sources, New America got $21M total from Google since '99. From their funding page, they got at least $16M from other sources last year alone. Are they really so dependent on Google?

ABCLAW 9y ago
>But is the concentration of power really at play here? Yes. The executive chairman of the corporation they receive ~%20 of their revenue from called and told them to get rid of the guy. The guy was gone in two days. This isn't a grey area. [Edited revenue figure]
- icebraining 9y ago
  they receive >%50 of their revenue Do they? What's the source of that?
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Misread your comment! Oops. I jumped into New America's filed 990 papers and the number at a first estimate is around 20%. But I haven't added in any personal donations by Eric Schmidt. Perhaps more importantly omitted is the fact that he is the chairman emeritus of the organization.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago

>is the concentration of power required to apply such pressure healthy for society as a whole? No concentration of power is required for a corporation to fire someone it effectively employs.

ABCLAW 9y ago
This is lazy thinking. Trying to smuggle the power into the concept of 'effective employment' doesn't do much to fix the issue if you're honest about it. You need power to fire people you directly employ, let alone researchers at third party think-tanks. Would google be 'effectively employing' this researcher if their contribution to New America made up less than 2% of their revenues rather than over half?
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  Yes you do need power to do what Google has done. But having the power to control a think-tank of that size does not require an industry to be nearly as concentrated as online advertising currently is. [Edit] Just think about how much you would have to reduce concentration in any industry so that no corporation is large enough to fund a think-tank and have someone fired. Even if you did that, corporations with shared interests could join together to do the same thing one larger corporation would otherwise have done. It wouldn't be the first time.