4 ms·

As I said (maybe in another thread, I don't remember), I have nothing against reporting that this is happening. I take issue with the framing as nefarious, esp

As I said (maybe in another thread, I don't remember), I have nothing against reporting that this is happening. I take issue with the framing as nefarious, especially the argument that it is nefarious because they advertise to their own users. By all means, make it public. I personally don't see the huge issue. Of course they are against government regulation that would harm their business. In the same vein I don't think it is very newsworthy that they fund sources they cite. Why wouldn't they?

leereeves 5y ago
Personally I don't think it's nefarious for Google to advertise to their own users, if they are honest. But if they are publishing astroturfed propaganda, as the article claims, I find that nefarious no matter who their audience is. > In the same vein I don't think it is very newsworthy that they fund sources they cite. Why wouldn't they? Obviously they would never say "According to a study we paid for...", because no one would believe it. But it's still a study they paid for, and hiding that fact is meant to make it more credible. It's deceptive.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  The article doesn't actually claim they are publishing astroturfed propaganda. It says Google references three organizations, one of which has been accused of an Astroturfing campaign by some other organisation, which apparently we are automatically supposed to trust (because we trust everybody who opposes big coporations, I guess?). That google supports organizations that work towards their own goal again is hardly "nefarious", but completely normal and sane behavior. What else are they supposed to do? Donate money to their enemies (which incidentally, they actually do, I expect, but that is besides the point). I am just tired of such articles breathlessly proclaiming big corp conspiracies for normal, sane behavior. I also don't see any references to "a study" in the article. And just because they support some organization that wrote something they like, doesn't mean they paid for that particular thing to be written. Even so, can we not expect some basic internet knowledge from Google users? Why would they automatically trust anything somebody links to support their cause? Of course if you follow a link from Google that says "this supports our cause", you take into account that the source is probably biased. Maybe the real issue is that people have some unrealistic expectations of Google to be some god-like neutral benign entity only working for the common good? No such things exists - and no, governments are not it, either.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Supports is not a strong enough word for an organization whose founder and chief executive officer previously led the public policy team at Google, or another in which Google is one of three partners. It's not like Google made a donation to an organization that already existed which they happen to agree with. Without Google, these organizations wouldn't exist. Which would all be fine, if Google made that clear when referencing them. When some organization makes a public statement, don't you like to know who financed them?
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      That is not how the article described these organizations, and I am too tired now to look them up. Ultimately I don't think it is unusual if people with the same interested work together.

leereeves 5y ago

Personally I don't think it's nefarious for Google to advertise to their own users, if they are honest. But if they are publishing astroturfed propaganda, as the article claims, I find that nefarious no matter who their audience is. > In the same vein I don't think it is very newsworthy that they fund sources they cite. Why wouldn't they? Obviously they would never say "According to a study we paid for...", because no one would believe it. But it's still a study they paid for, and hiding that fact is meant to make it more credible. It's deceptive.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
The article doesn't actually claim they are publishing astroturfed propaganda. It says Google references three organizations, one of which has been accused of an Astroturfing campaign by some other organisation, which apparently we are automatically supposed to trust (because we trust everybody who opposes big coporations, I guess?). That google supports organizations that work towards their own goal again is hardly "nefarious", but completely normal and sane behavior. What else are they supposed to do? Donate money to their enemies (which incidentally, they actually do, I expect, but that is besides the point). I am just tired of such articles breathlessly proclaiming big corp conspiracies for normal, sane behavior. I also don't see any references to "a study" in the article. And just because they support some organization that wrote something they like, doesn't mean they paid for that particular thing to be written. Even so, can we not expect some basic internet knowledge from Google users? Why would they automatically trust anything somebody links to support their cause? Of course if you follow a link from Google that says "this supports our cause", you take into account that the source is probably biased. Maybe the real issue is that people have some unrealistic expectations of Google to be some god-like neutral benign entity only working for the common good? No such things exists - and no, governments are not it, either.
- leereeves 5y ago
  Supports is not a strong enough word for an organization whose founder and chief executive officer previously led the public policy team at Google, or another in which Google is one of three partners. It's not like Google made a donation to an organization that already existed which they happen to agree with. Without Google, these organizations wouldn't exist. Which would all be fine, if Google made that clear when referencing them. When some organization makes a public statement, don't you like to know who financed them?
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    That is not how the article described these organizations, and I am too tired now to look them up. Ultimately I don't think it is unusual if people with the same interested work together.