6 ms·

How Google quietly funds Europe’s leading tech policy institutes

158 points by hhs 5y ago

gundmc 5y ago
There is a lot implied in this article. Right from the word "quietly" in the title, we're clearly supposed to believe that something sinister is going on, but the article doesn't connect the dots on any sort of quid pro quo. It doesn't seem inherently shady to fund research relevant to your area of business. Did the outcomes of research at these institutions change after receiving money from Google and Facebook?
- amelius 5y ago
  > Did the outcomes of research at these institutions change after receiving money from Google and Facebook? Perhaps not the outcomes. But some PI could have said "let's not research that, because Google might not like it".
  - toxik 5y ago
    I find it unlikely, this would quickly earn them the reputation of being a turncoat. A bad reputation is pretty hard to shake off. Ten good deeds weigh the same as one bad deed.
    - wpasc 5y ago
      Idk, it might be pretty hard to work at an institution where Facebook provides a lot of funding and not have that filter in to your mind at all, consciously or subconsciously. Let's say your considering a range of topics to pursue next and you know Facebook is a big funder, you may just choose not to pursue "is depression strongly positively correlated with Instagram use in teens" and pursue something else
      - the_rectifier 5y ago
        This is exactly how manipulation is done and the reason for companies to do the funding.
        toxik 5y ago
        It’s much less sinister than that. Facebook funds PhDs in some fields because they want experts in that field to a) exist, b) like Facebook.
        droopyEyelids 5y ago
        Even the way you're phrasing it, sounds like PhDs don't get to a) exist without Facebook's blessing
        toxik 5y ago
        It is generally the case that things don't exist without funding, correct. Different countries have different political consensus on how much tax money to pour into funding PhDs for basic research, but /all/ do to some extent as far as I know. I think you should read Sapiens by Harrari, he writes about the interaction between universities, capitalism and democracy. Very illuminating to me.
- blub 5y ago
  The researchers are failing to disclose their financial relationship with e.g. Google while publishing papers about e.g. Google. This is a clear cut conflict of interest which should get them banned from publishing.
  - gundmc 5y ago
    Agreed. If there are norms around transparency of funding that are not being followed then that is a big problem.
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  We know what happens when research is founded by non-impartial entities. We've seen it in the context of the tobacco settlement.
viktorcode 5y ago
I find it disturbing that academics do not routinely disclose their conflicts of interest in their works. In the age when the scientific papers quality is falling, we don't need yet another reason to question scientific papers integrity. Without disclosure some people will think it was done on purpose.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  > In the age when the scientific papers quality is falling [Citation needed]?
  - chestertn 5y ago
    Ha. Try to publish that.
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      I'd bet you a pint you could publish it without any real issue as long as you weren't glib or facetious in your presentation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pfortuny 5y ago
    Common knowledge does mot need citations. Am an academic.
    - omegalulw 5y ago
      It's not though. And for a topic such as this where people in academia are going to be obviously biased, citation is all the more important.
    - speters 5y ago
      It's also common knowledge that even comparing the academic workings of two sub fields is non-trivial
xhkkffbf 5y ago
It's not just Europe. Many of the US academics and NGOs like the EFF are heavily subsidized by Google.
- 3gg 5y ago
  Wait, the EFF is subsidized by Google? For what it's worth, it looks like most of their funding comes from individuals: https://www.eff.org/files/annual-report/2019/index.html https://www.eff.org/files/annual-report/2019/index.html
lateobservation 5y ago
One needs to be careful when reading assessments and research. I want to add that the European Commission leads much of the funding of research organizations, and they also expect something in return. The question is why should we be fine with the European Commission pushing their agenda? Being a politician is a job, like it is being a manager of a trillion dollar company. It doesn't magicaly guarantee that you are protecting the social greater good.
- kazen44 5y ago
  the difference between a politician and an executive is that for one, as a european, you have democratic control of the people who make up the commision, while no one is able to do so for private companies. It is actually quite sad how little democratic power people hold inside the companies and jobs they work at, especially compared to mid to late 20th century.
- lmm 5y ago
  > I want to add that the European Commission leads much of the funding of research organizations, and they also expect something in return. > The question is why should we be fine with the European Commission pushing their agenda? Because they're a public body and subject to a lot of strict accountability rules (and, ultimately, to the ballot box). For example, you can make FOIA-style requests to find out about their internal documents and decision-making. Good luck doing that with Google.
Daniel_sk 5y ago
Not only that - they also indirectly fund news agencies, for example in Europe they have the "Digital News Innovation Fund" with 140m+ USD funding in 2019. Our Slovak DennikN newsletter got $330k from Google to help to develop a paywall system. They also got some money from Google's "Journalism Emergency Relief Fund" in 2020. https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/digital-news-innovation-fund-three-years-and-662-total-projects-supported/ https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/digit... https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/journalism-emergency-relief-fund/ https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/journalism-emergency-r...
huitzitziltzin 5y ago
As an academic economist, I am glad they are doing this. (Disclosure: I don’t work on platform or network issues, nor do I have a funding relationship with any of these companies.) As the article notes (and as is true) there are issues in the regulation of platform markets and network goods in economics which are still quite unclear, even in theory. It isn’t clear what the right (theoretical) model is or what the welfare costs or benefits are, so the best way to regulate these firms or do competition policy in this area is similarly unclear. What’s more, even if you have a model, that’s not enough to convince people. You will generally need data to estimate it to get an idea of what the costs or benefits of different market structures or regulations would be in practice. These firms are the only firms that can provide that data. (Exception: the government can demand it as part of an antitrust investigation, but that is generally locked down and unavailable for research.) Anyone accepting their money should absolutely disclose that relationship in any project remotely related to those issues, but you can generally find such disclosures, at least with economists. I also very much doubt that a research grant of the size of academic research grants I’m aware of is enough to “buy” someone’s opinion. This is not some nefarious conspiracy!
- jka 5y ago
  Aren't there intrinsic conflict-of-interest risks if the only companies who can provide data for regulatory guidance are the companies themselves?
  - huitzitziltzin 5y ago
    Normally when you sign an agreement with any firm to get data they get the right to look at what you did but they explicitly give up any editorial role. They might, however, not be that excited to give you the data for a second project if they don’t like what you said in the first one? That’s possible. So overall: maybe a small conflict?? But I don’t think the effects on the conclusion of the research are likely to be that strong. Not in economics anyway. No one’s research agenda is so tied to any one industry. Most of the firms can comfort themselves with the thought that the readership of whatever journal you publish in is probably measured in tens or hundreds.
- 5y ago
ma2rten 5y ago
In the US the way to influence politics is campaign contributions to politicians. In Europe that kind of blatant influence is frowned upon, but it seems like companies are still trying to take a page from the same playbook by influencing politics through academics instead.
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
  Also most european countries have campaign budget limitations, so campaign contributions don't have that much weight to begin with.
- belter 5y ago
  Lobbying in general is way more corrupt in Europe than in US. In the US the fact that professional lobbyists exist, puts pressure on non official operations and makes it easier to track registered lobbyists. This does not make US based activities less censurable, but in Europe the current model is one of voluntary registration. Google based lobbying actions in the European Union are no less intense: 249 meetings! Its amazing how much time EU officials seem to have. https://www.integritywatch.eu/organizations https://www.integritywatch.eu/organizations From their results looks like Google is not getting back their money worth...
  - dathinab 5y ago
    Just to be clear I'm not saying it's not a problem, but: > 249 meetings! The parliament alone has more then 700 members, idk. if 249 for one of the largest tech companies is really that bad. The problem are less the number of meetings but a lot of other things around it.
    - belter 5y ago
      Make that actually 260 meetings....sometimes 12 times with the same persons. Full PDF List here: https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do;TRPUBLIC-ID-prod=wtcEHkTzIZ1Lhj_I-rxrHywzRl7GYqDX9aAd-LdUBNLOFnQN2xeV!665720404?id=03181945560-59&pdf=true https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio...
ur-whale 5y ago
https://archive.is/uwfnc https://archive.is/uwfnc

158 points by hhs 5y ago

There is a lot implied in this article. Right from the word "quietly" in the title, we're clearly supposed to believe that something sinister is going on, but the article doesn't connect the dots on any sort of quid pro quo. It doesn't seem inherently shady to fund research relevant to your area of business. Did the outcomes of research at these institutions change after receiving money from Google and Facebook?

amelius 5y ago
> Did the outcomes of research at these institutions change after receiving money from Google and Facebook? Perhaps not the outcomes. But some PI could have said "let's not research that, because Google might not like it".
- toxik 5y ago
  I find it unlikely, this would quickly earn them the reputation of being a turncoat. A bad reputation is pretty hard to shake off. Ten good deeds weigh the same as one bad deed.
  - wpasc 5y ago
    Idk, it might be pretty hard to work at an institution where Facebook provides a lot of funding and not have that filter in to your mind at all, consciously or subconsciously. Let's say your considering a range of topics to pursue next and you know Facebook is a big funder, you may just choose not to pursue "is depression strongly positively correlated with Instagram use in teens" and pursue something else
    - the_rectifier 5y ago
      This is exactly how manipulation is done and the reason for companies to do the funding.
      - toxik 5y ago
        It’s much less sinister than that. Facebook funds PhDs in some fields because they want experts in that field to a) exist, b) like Facebook.
        droopyEyelids 5y ago
        Even the way you're phrasing it, sounds like PhDs don't get to a) exist without Facebook's blessing
        toxik 5y ago
        It is generally the case that things don't exist without funding, correct. Different countries have different political consensus on how much tax money to pour into funding PhDs for basic research, but /all/ do to some extent as far as I know. I think you should read Sapiens by Harrari, he writes about the interaction between universities, capitalism and democracy. Very illuminating to me.
blub 5y ago
The researchers are failing to disclose their financial relationship with e.g. Google while publishing papers about e.g. Google. This is a clear cut conflict of interest which should get them banned from publishing.
- gundmc 5y ago
  Agreed. If there are norms around transparency of funding that are not being followed then that is a big problem.
HarryHirsch 5y ago
We know what happens when research is founded by non-impartial entities. We've seen it in the context of the tobacco settlement.

viktorcode 5y ago

I find it disturbing that academics do not routinely disclose their conflicts of interest in their works. In the age when the scientific papers quality is falling, we don't need yet another reason to question scientific papers integrity. Without disclosure some people will think it was done on purpose.

mhh__ 5y ago
> In the age when the scientific papers quality is falling [Citation needed]?
- chestertn 5y ago
  Ha. Try to publish that.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    I'd bet you a pint you could publish it without any real issue as long as you weren't glib or facetious in your presentation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pfortuny 5y ago
  Common knowledge does mot need citations. Am an academic.
  - omegalulw 5y ago
    It's not though. And for a topic such as this where people in academia are going to be obviously biased, citation is all the more important.
  - speters 5y ago
    It's also common knowledge that even comparing the academic workings of two sub fields is non-trivial

xhkkffbf 5y ago

It's not just Europe. Many of the US academics and NGOs like the EFF are heavily subsidized by Google.

3gg 5y ago
Wait, the EFF is subsidized by Google? For what it's worth, it looks like most of their funding comes from individuals: https://www.eff.org/files/annual-report/2019/index.html https://www.eff.org/files/annual-report/2019/index.html

lateobservation 5y ago

One needs to be careful when reading assessments and research. I want to add that the European Commission leads much of the funding of research organizations, and they also expect something in return. The question is why should we be fine with the European Commission pushing their agenda? Being a politician is a job, like it is being a manager of a trillion dollar company. It doesn't magicaly guarantee that you are protecting the social greater good.

kazen44 5y ago
the difference between a politician and an executive is that for one, as a european, you have democratic control of the people who make up the commision, while no one is able to do so for private companies. It is actually quite sad how little democratic power people hold inside the companies and jobs they work at, especially compared to mid to late 20th century.
lmm 5y ago
> I want to add that the European Commission leads much of the funding of research organizations, and they also expect something in return. > The question is why should we be fine with the European Commission pushing their agenda? Because they're a public body and subject to a lot of strict accountability rules (and, ultimately, to the ballot box). For example, you can make FOIA-style requests to find out about their internal documents and decision-making. Good luck doing that with Google.

Daniel_sk 5y ago

Not only that - they also indirectly fund news agencies, for example in Europe they have the "Digital News Innovation Fund" with 140m+ USD funding in 2019. Our Slovak DennikN newsletter got $330k from Google to help to develop a paywall system. They also got some money from Google's "Journalism Emergency Relief Fund" in 2020. https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/digital-news-innovation-fund-three-years-and-662-total-projects-supported/ https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/digit... https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/journalism-emergency-relief-fund/ https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/journalism-emergency-r...

huitzitziltzin 5y ago

As an academic economist, I am glad they are doing this. (Disclosure: I don’t work on platform or network issues, nor do I have a funding relationship with any of these companies.) As the article notes (and as is true) there are issues in the regulation of platform markets and network goods in economics which are still quite unclear, even in theory. It isn’t clear what the right (theoretical) model is or what the welfare costs or benefits are, so the best way to regulate these firms or do competition policy in this area is similarly unclear. What’s more, even if you have a model, that’s not enough to convince people. You will generally need data to estimate it to get an idea of what the costs or benefits of different market structures or regulations would be in practice. These firms are the only firms that can provide that data. (Exception: the government can demand it as part of an antitrust investigation, but that is generally locked down and unavailable for research.) Anyone accepting their money should absolutely disclose that relationship in any project remotely related to those issues, but you can generally find such disclosures, at least with economists. I also very much doubt that a research grant of the size of academic research grants I’m aware of is enough to “buy” someone’s opinion. This is not some nefarious conspiracy!

jka 5y ago
Aren't there intrinsic conflict-of-interest risks if the only companies who can provide data for regulatory guidance are the companies themselves?
- huitzitziltzin 5y ago
  Normally when you sign an agreement with any firm to get data they get the right to look at what you did but they explicitly give up any editorial role. They might, however, not be that excited to give you the data for a second project if they don’t like what you said in the first one? That’s possible. So overall: maybe a small conflict?? But I don’t think the effects on the conclusion of the research are likely to be that strong. Not in economics anyway. No one’s research agenda is so tied to any one industry. Most of the firms can comfort themselves with the thought that the readership of whatever journal you publish in is probably measured in tens or hundreds.
5y ago

ma2rten 5y ago

In the US the way to influence politics is campaign contributions to politicians. In Europe that kind of blatant influence is frowned upon, but it seems like companies are still trying to take a page from the same playbook by influencing politics through academics instead.

PoignardAzur 5y ago
Also most european countries have campaign budget limitations, so campaign contributions don't have that much weight to begin with.
belter 5y ago
Lobbying in general is way more corrupt in Europe than in US. In the US the fact that professional lobbyists exist, puts pressure on non official operations and makes it easier to track registered lobbyists. This does not make US based activities less censurable, but in Europe the current model is one of voluntary registration. Google based lobbying actions in the European Union are no less intense: 249 meetings! Its amazing how much time EU officials seem to have. https://www.integritywatch.eu/organizations https://www.integritywatch.eu/organizations From their results looks like Google is not getting back their money worth...
- dathinab 5y ago
  Just to be clear I'm not saying it's not a problem, but: > 249 meetings! The parliament alone has more then 700 members, idk. if 249 for one of the largest tech companies is really that bad. The problem are less the number of meetings but a lot of other things around it.
  - belter 5y ago
    Make that actually 260 meetings....sometimes 12 times with the same persons. Full PDF List here: https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do;TRPUBLIC-ID-prod=wtcEHkTzIZ1Lhj_I-rxrHywzRl7GYqDX9aAd-LdUBNLOFnQN2xeV!665720404?id=03181945560-59&pdf=true https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio...

ur-whale 5y ago

https://archive.is/uwfnc https://archive.is/uwfnc