4 ms·
Incorrect. He was not a Google employee. Google was a patron of the nonprofit think-tank, NA, and he worked for NA. The patron didn't like what think-tank was s
by trapperkeeper74 9y ago
Incorrect. He was not a Google employee. Google was a patron of the nonprofit think-tank, NA, and he worked for NA. The patron didn't like what think-tank was saying and used leverage to corrupt think-tank because it's leader lacked integrity and moral courage. NA's leadership could've chosen to say "FU and here's your money back" to Google, but they didn't. NA sided with Google, but he still isn't, and never was, a Google employee. It's fucked up and every NA patron should pull their funding if they had any integrity.
- AndrewKemendo 9y agoYou work for whoever pays you. In this case Google/Schmidt paid NA, who paid the author. In an ideal world, then yes a think tank would be independent of their funding source. In the real world, they aren't and never have been. Ignoring this just gets you fired. By all means shame NA for this, but thinking that it's a scandal that the non-profit world works for corporate donors is naiive.
- vaishaksuresh 9y ago>It's fucked up and every NA patron should pull their funding if they had any integrity. That is what Google did, just not because of integrity.