Hiring an activist and then firing them before a paper is published can also be viewed as expecting them to be your activist. Maybe Google wanted to be part of

Hiring an activist and then firing them before a paper is published can also be viewed as expecting them to be your activist. Maybe Google wanted to be part of the anti-establishment movement as long as its part focused on competitors. I find the sequence of decisions made by Google problematic. Until they describe in intimate detail what their management has been planning to filter they are effectively retracting all research from their institution as having this unknown bias. Like a tabaco lab that blocks all results against their products. That this was shoddy means nothing unless someone would have caught a Google positive piece as shoddy and actually stopped it at this process. I would guess no. The right thing to do was let it be published, get external critique and end the relationship if most people with no money in the game thought it was bad science.