Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant (nytimes.com) 122
An anonymous reader writes: A researcher at a high-profile Washington, D.C.-think tank, which receives funding from Google, was pushed out after criticizing the company. In June, Barry Lynn, who was a scholar at New America, posted a statement praising the European Union's record $2.7 billion fine against the company. Lynn ran a team, Open Markets, that researched competition policy and was increasingly critical of giants like Google and Amazon. Google executive chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt, criticized Lynn's statement to the think tank's CEO, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to The New York Times. Schmidt chaired New America until 2016. The think tank has received $21 million from Google and Schmidt's family's foundation since its founding in 1999. The statement reportedly disappeared from the think tank website but returned hours later. According to the Times, word of Schmidt's displeasure spread across the think tank. Slaughter fired Lynn days later, saying in an email obtained by the Times that "the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways." Slaughter told Lynn in an email that his firing was "in no way based on the content of your work," but said he was "imperiling the institution as a whole." Lynn told the Times he believed his dismissal was because he criticized Google.
New Slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Google: 'redefining evil, because we can'.
Re: (Score:1)
Is that you, GlaDOS?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want some cake?
Re: (Score:1)
Only if it's black forest.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know the cake is a lie?
Re: (Score:1)
But...but...I saw a picture. And I was told it's delicious and moist. /sob
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New Slogan (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok I don't know why he was fired, neither do you, but the appearance of bias is almost as bad as actual bias. It takes away legitimacy from the think tank. It is like google is above firing people they disagree with (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo). A person should have the right to express their opinion weather or not you agree with it. If your think beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny then they can't be very sound beliefs.
If you are going to have a think tank, the need have opposing opinions, otherwise you come up with a predetermined solution. I you set up group to decide what color you should paint a wall, and your criteria for picking them is they want the wall to be pink, guess what you are going to get a pink wall.
If google has the power to push out people it disagrees with then you don't have a think tank, you have a lobbing tool for google. In reality that is what a "think tank" is, but it shouldn't be.
Re:New Slogan (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you are going to have a think tank, the need have opposing opinions, otherwise you come up with a predetermined solution."
I don't think you understand what think tanks are for. They are for exactly this. They are to provide a facade of credibility to a body that is pushing an agenda of one sort or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, if you think that companies give these "think tanks" money to come up with ideas and run with them you are crazy. They give money to these to push an agenda. The "news" of this article is that one of the employees of this propaganda machine didn't understand what his job really was.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has a history of this - they didn't like being held to EU data protection laws, so they created a think tank and spent millions sending it around Europe, except all questions to the think tank were pre-screened and you could be turned away if you asked a question they didn't like.
Think tanks as a lobbying tool is already a well established part of Google's modus operandi, thus all think tanks Google produce are effectively meaningless for the reasons you cite - they simply can't be trusted to act as
Re: (Score:2)
"And after this article was published online Wednesday morning, Ms. Slaughter wrote on Twitter that it was “false.” She failed to cite any errors on Twitter or in a statement issued hours later through New America. Ms. Mariani did not respond to requests to identify errors or to make Ms. Slaughter available for an interview."
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you hate capitalism and the free market?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? Who is bribing whom? What activity are you even talking about? I thought we were talking about a guy getting fired for not doing his job.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, and they fired a naive fool who apparently didn't realize that this was his job as a think tank worker (think-tanker?).
Re: (Score:2)
this was his job as a think tank worker (think-tanker?).
Tank thinker, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, everybody can take their shot at influencing public opinion, or the opinions of government officials. Think tanks do this by coming up with arguments. This is fine. Bribery is when an official gets something he or she values in exchange for influence or doing a particular thing, not when an official gets convinced that something is the right thing to do, or that the official's constituents want it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Snarkiness aside, this is not capitalism
Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which capital controls the means of production. How is this not capitalism?
nor is it free market.
Google wasn't getting what it was paying for, so they decided that he shouldn't get paid any more. How is this not the free market?
Re: (Score:1)
Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which capital controls the means of production. How is this not capitalism?
i'm pretty sure that's wrong, because it didn't include "Jesus" or "freedom". also your phrasing practically invites criticism, which is itself tantamount to being a Marxist, and since you're a communist you must be wrong. qed.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you twelve? Talk like an adult if you expect a response. Kids these days need a taste of the belt, damn liberals ruined today's youth with their permissive attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: New Slogan (Score:2)
Google sure does love censorship.
Time to dust off the old antitrust laws. Break up Google!
Re: (Score:2)
There is not that much really there to break up. Google with the help of the deep state and scammy bankers, just used their overprice share float to buy up other actually performing companies, in order to take a more dominant and corruptive position in line with their deep state finnacial origins. You start to think how best to avoid dealing with google and remeber that I don't spend one cent with google. A lot of advertisers are simply sucked in.
For example, when looking for a specific company and the sea
Nothing new here (Score:2)
"the time has come for Open Markets and (New) America to part ways."
Apart from the spelling error (either America or "the New World"), I'd mod this a slow news day...
"New America" is the name of the think-tank (Score:2)
"the time has come for Open Markets and (New) America to part ways."
Apart from the spelling error (either America or "the New World")...
"New America" is the name of the think-tank.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that's very valuable information. Now I know which one to expect to be Google-influenced.
Re: (Score:2)
Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly correct. They are just fake news generators for their funders.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not really the story here, the story is that Google has clearly gone evil. Seeing that they were founded on the slogan "Don't be evil" it's a pretty big change. Firing that engineer for saying men and women are different was when they crossed the moral event horizon, and now their face-heel turn appears complete.
Now all Google needs is a red lightsaber and a cool makeover with some spikes or breathing machine. It's so sad. I loved Google for a long time. They really were one of the good guys,
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like commie talk, mister. The free market has spoken, amen, praise be to The Invisible Hand.
Good marketing (Score:3)
Re:Good marketing (Score:5, Interesting)
Calling it a "think tank" indicates that pretty effectively all by itself.
WRONG! (Score:2, Informative)
A comma is NOT necessary just because the subject consists of more than one word. Fuckheads.
Re: (Score:3)
A comma is NOT necessary just because the subject consists of more than one word. Fuckheads.
I, disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
The original sentence flows more smoothly without any commas at all while still being unambiguous in structure. This is one of those cases where less punctuation is more. (Disclaimer: I, too, tend to overuse commas, as my brain thinks, incorrectly, that the mental pause it elicits conveys gravitas.)
Re: (Score:3)
It should have both or neither.
The woman over there with the gold hat is Queen Elizabeth. OK
The woman over there, with the gold hat, is Queen Elizabeth. OK
The woman over there, with the gold hat is Queen Elizabeth. No!
The woman, over there with the gold hat is Queen Elizabeth. Even Joe_Dragon wouldn't do this!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again the EU is way ahead: citizens pay for state media and the government decides the tune.
That really wouldn't make me feel a whole lot better. The media should be independent.
Re: (Score:2)
What? In all cases I know of in the EU (and I guess you really mean Europe but didn't know enough to name the entity correctly) where there are "state media" it is independent. A government can't directly influence that media which works under a set of rules which in most cases are fixed in law - so changing the rules means changing the law. That's hard to do as most European countries aren't two-party states like some other places and getting enough support for changing something almost considered sacred i
Re: (Score:2)
Pipers gotta pipe.
Think Tanks gotta psychically power their overland armored vehicles to shoot mind bullets at the enemy.
That costs dosh.
Free speech with consequences (Score:2)
Pretty mild to get just dumped, if it is just that. No other consequences?
Looking at turkey, someone "thinks" it would be good to get rid of someone, just call him/her a terrorist.
Brave new world....
Re: (Score:2)
Inanimate objects and software can't be good or evil -- but they can be security threats. Android itself is no more or less of a security threat than any other OS -- but the Google apps that usually ship with Android are very definitely a such a threat.
Fortunately, you can have Android without Google. Unfortunately, you have to be either tech-savvy or wealthy to accomplish that.
Re: (Score:2)
Inanimate objects and software can't be good or evil
Land mines and malware would like a word with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Both are extreme security threats.
We're delving into philosophy now, but in my mind "good" and "evil" are matters of intent. Non-sentient things have no intent, and so can't be either. However, they can be used to further good or evil ends.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, fuck Google. Fuck Eric Schmidt.
Google is dangerous, too big, too influential, too invasively creepy.
In some dystopian future, people will think back on events like this and say "Why didn't we see all of this coming?" Right before the telescreen interrupts with the tune calling for morning calisthenics.
Re: (Score:2)
Right before the telescreen interrupts with the tune calling for morning calisthenics.
Haven't you been following tech news?
They're working on a direct brain-computer interface.
You won't have a choice. Your body will simply do calisthenics as the exercise/health program running on your dry/wetware processor schedules & initiates.
You'll simply be a passenger. And you'll pay for the privilege. Automatically. Without your consent.
Because that's what is best for society/the collective as determined by your betters.
Strat
Let me get this straight (Score:2)
You want the company that provides funding to part ways with your organization?
At what point when funding goes away does the org cease to exist?
I'm confused... (Score:2)
isn't this how markets work?
I feel like there is a distinct failure to recognize the fundamental problems behind the theory of the free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, pretty much.
Thinks tanks are paid to think along certain lines. Don't worry, they'll find someone else to think the right thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I do not support or condone the actions of Google. However, I find it funny that so many proponents of the free market are incapable of even acknowledging that there are serious flaws in the theory.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not a proponent of the free market, if anything quite the reverse - free market capitalism as it is currently being practiced particularly:
I find it funny that so many proponents of the free market are incapable of even acknowledging that there are serious flaws in the theory.
I'm not sure there are any flaws in the theory. It's simply that reality doesn't match the theory! ;-)
Don't bite the hand (Score:1)
Credibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The purpose of think tanks is twofold:
Lobby for whatever cause they're paid to lobby for, and
Provide jobs for people who were put out of work by the most recent election and are waiting for the next election to get another appointment
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of think tanks is twofold:
Lobby for whatever cause they're paid to lobby for, and
Provide jobs for people who were put out of work by the most recent election and are waiting for the next election to get another appointment
I don't think that's entirely untrue, but it's also extremely cynical. Most people are not born corrupt, and many go into these think tanks with the idea of promoting good solutions to difficult problems. Not everyone is evil.
Yes, let's all agree how Google is right (Score:5, Informative)
Soon it will be all you can do anyway.
What is a "Think Tank"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're less lobbying organizations than they are intellectual justification factories.
Pick a position on an issue, threw a few million dollars at a bunch of academics, and you can probably wind up with enough "evidence" to advocate for the truth and accuracy of your position and bury your opponents.
I think at one time, think tanks actually did something useful -- academic studies of issues ignored by academics, or multidisciplinary studies of issues that weren't well explained by any single discipl
Re: (Score:2)
In Douglas Adam's "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul", one character had written a decision support system, which would take a decision and support it. Unfortunately, the US Armed Forces made it impossible for him to sell it to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're less lobbying organizations than they are intellectual justification factories.
Lobbying is half constructing a halfway believable argument, and half applying the right amount of grease to all the right places to keep the machine running the way you want it to. Think tanks are half of that.
There is a better name (Score:2)
Think-Alike Tank.
Google is definitely evil now (Score:2)
So this was not actually a think tank, this organization was a tax deductible way for Google to shill and lobby for it's policies covertly. This kind of conflict of interest with charitable donations should be scrutinized hard by the federal government. It is likely that Google owes tax on every dollar sent to this institution since they are clearly a Google proxy, and not an independent entity. The think tank should probably also lose any tax benefits it has and be re-categorized as a lobbying organizat
Re: (Score:2)
So this was not actually a think tank, this organization was a tax deductible way for Google to shill and lobby for it's policies covertly.
Not that I'm happy to see Google doing these things, but please point to the think tank that isn't precisely that for someone.
Re: (Score:2)
So lets apply the same investigation on others too. This doesn't need to be a partisan activity, it's a way to assure compliance with tax laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for a case by case review of these think tanks. From what I have seen, there are a fair number of such on both the political right and left who are genuinely focused on issues and spreading their ideas on the cable shows. Most of the grass roots Tea Party 501C organizations that Obama's IRS fraudulently sabotaged were in the same category and were genuinely focused on policy, voter education and turnout.
I don't know what the spread is between legit think tanks and lobbying proxies, but there are
Re: (Score:2)
Echo Chamber (Score:2)
Google isn't interested in diversity of opinion. Group think is what they're all about now.
Kinda obvious isn't it? (Score:2)
For those who don't know - think tanks are basically evangelizers, they are hired and paid for government lobbying. Specially if they are located in DC.
It's like having your high level 3rd party marketing team making public statements and celebrating that your company was successfully sued. In their official page, no less.
This isn't even backroom talk, it's basically doing the opposite you were hired for.
Old news? (Score:2)
"the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,”
Really! And only so recently?! I would swear that the "New" America parted ways with "Open Markets" some time back.
never seen it comming (Score:1)
Guy writes critical article of the main investor of the company, gets fired. News at 11.
open markets (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)