Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#211

Post by matt4077 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

Jesus_Jones wrote: post #201

matt4077 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Wait! I can't follow... The article doesn't even say that Schmidt called for the guy's head. It seems to have been the Foundation's decision. That's arguably a spineless move, but then again it's probably in their interest. And what, exactly, would be ethically wrong about stopping funding for an institution you no longer agree with? After all, every single donation to charity is based on the principle that tho…

Are you being oblivious on purpose? It strains credibility to think that Schmidt and Google didn't like a blog post by a think tank they funded generously to criticize them. I'm pretty confident they acted to get it taken down and wanted him gone. Suppose that wasn't the case, what conceivable reason would there before for kicking them out? The tank says: "it was a shared decision to kick them out". The other side: "…

I'm not actually disagreeing with you. I just consider it somewhat possible that Schmidt simply complained, and the administrators got cold feet and made that decision. The people being fired are unlikely to know what Schmidt may or may not have discussed with the administration.

Anyway, that's not the point. The question is: why should someone not be allowed to change their funding decisions when the organisations they're funding go down a path they disagree with? Why should anybody be forced to continue to finance people after they've become the opposition.

Note also that Schmidt used to be the Chairman at this think tank, meaning that he is not just providing funding, but part of the academic community in its orbit, with a legitimate stake to disagree on the merits of the science.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#212

Post by jcoffland » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:18 PM UTC

sah2ed wrote: post #74

fizixer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me see, the title reads "Open Markets Applauds X" where X is a court verdict against those who're funding the think tank that produced the article. Regardless of the content of the article or the fairness of the court's decision, the title itself is inflammatory and nothing less than indicative of someone having a beef and thumbing their nose at Google. The lack of self-awareness on part of whoever came up with t…

I disagree that the title's author wasn't (self-)aware of Google being one of the think tank's sponsors; I think the author was indeed aware but somehow deluded themselves into thinking that the think tank could live up to the ideals of being truly independent while taking corporate funds. What title do you suggest could have been less inflammatory but still convey the same message?

Think tank is just a more palatable way of saying lobbyist group with integrity. Lobbyists have always pushed the interests of their donors.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#213

Post by shemnon42 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:19 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #204

ex3xu wrote: post #175

I recently picked up a book called, "No Wall Too High", the translated man who escaped from a Chinese labor camp under Mao Zedong. In this book, during his time in a re-education camp in Lijiang, the author relates seeing the story of Yang Shukang -- a man whose crime was simply writing a letter to the central leadership in Beijing saying that two thousand people had starved to death in his town of Jiuhe during the g…

Was not aware that 2000 people starved to death at Google.

They are starving because they refuse to eat Kale.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#214

Post by waisbrot » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:22 PM UTC

21 wrote: post #200

jcoffland wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great story but I fail to see the connection. This is a case of don't shit where you eat. If you want to speak out against Google then don't belong to an organization funded by Google.

That organization doesn't say on it's website "we are a Google PR firm", or "we will never criticize Google", they imply they are an "independent think-tank not influenced by money".

And this isn't a Google-created group where you'd dig into their founders/records a little and be able to see that they're a Google PR firm. It's just that Google (among other companies?) has successfully given them funding to a degree where they can no longer afford to annoy Google.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#215

Post by fenwick67 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #32

waisbrot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article wasn't suggesting that Google has to fund its critics. The article was describing how a theoretically independent think-tank was compromised by Google. First Google offers you money for the work you're already doing. Once you become dependent on that money, they can threaten to take it away. The problem is that the only way to be truly independent is to take no money from corporations. But any group that…

Have I awoken in an alternate universe? Once 21 million dollars was accepted there isn't an "independence" theoretical or otherwise. It's ludicrous to existentially attack the company giving this money and expect not be removed from the group. If you want true independence it has to be something like citizen grass roots funding. And even that probably has a bias. But it would be a start. Expecting anything but specia…

It's similar to a newspaper shilling out to advertisers and refusing to publish any bad stories about them.

It's not illegal, but it's bad practice, and puts the integrity of the publisher and the sponsor into question. I think that's all people are saying.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#216

Post by notliketherest » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

jcoffland wrote: post #195

ex3xu wrote: post #175

I recently picked up a book called, "No Wall Too High", the translated man who escaped from a Chinese labor camp under Mao Zedong. In this book, during his time in a re-education camp in Lijiang, the author relates seeing the story of Yang Shukang -- a man whose crime was simply writing a letter to the central leadership in Beijing saying that two thousand people had starved to death in his town of Jiuhe during the g…

Great story but I fail to see the connection. This is a case of don't shit where you eat. If you want to speak out against Google then don't belong to an organization funded by Google.

Could just as easily be restated: If you don't want to speak out against China then don't live in China. Increasingly these transnational corporations have become in some cases more powerful than states, recording our every movement online and offline, curating what news we read and pushing their agendas and biases.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#217

Post by imaginenore » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #207

ex3xu wrote: post #175

I recently picked up a book called, "No Wall Too High", the translated man who escaped from a Chinese labor camp under Mao Zedong. In this book, during his time in a re-education camp in Lijiang, the author relates seeing the story of Yang Shukang -- a man whose crime was simply writing a letter to the central leadership in Beijing saying that two thousand people had starved to death in his town of Jiuhe during the g…

Give me a break. Nobody is even censoring anybody's speech here. The real evil here is the lobbying organization itself. Corporations and billionaires buying our politicians and distorting the public debate is a much bigger threat than some lobbyist's freedom to argue against his boss's interests.

That's rich, considering Google just fired a guy for an internal memo full of apologies and facts backed by citations.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#218

Post by kobeya » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

notliketherest wrote: post #216

jcoffland wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great story but I fail to see the connection. This is a case of don't shit where you eat. If you want to speak out against Google then don't belong to an organization funded by Google.

Could just as easily be restated: If you don't want to speak out against China then don't live in China. Increasingly these transnational corporations have become in some cases more powerful than states, recording our every movement online and offline, curating what news we read and pushing their agendas and biases.

I didn't have any trouble choosing not to buy Echo/Alexis/whatever.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#219

Post by kobeya » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:30 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #207

ex3xu wrote: post #175

I recently picked up a book called, "No Wall Too High", the translated man who escaped from a Chinese labor camp under Mao Zedong. In this book, during his time in a re-education camp in Lijiang, the author relates seeing the story of Yang Shukang -- a man whose crime was simply writing a letter to the central leadership in Beijing saying that two thousand people had starved to death in his town of Jiuhe during the g…

Give me a break. Nobody is even censoring anybody's speech here. The real evil here is the lobbying organization itself. Corporations and billionaires buying our politicians and distorting the public debate is a much bigger threat than some lobbyist's freedom to argue against his boss's interests.

The real evil is people willing to pivot any discussion to whatever topic they think is more important, destroying a platform for open discourse.

Re: Google Critic Ousted from Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant

#220

Post by kobeya » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 5:35 PM UTC

gonmf wrote: post #59

ktta wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, these sort of situations (creating dependence) are very hard to pick apart and point out who is at fault. Say an organization 'A' funds another organization 'B' (maybe non-profit, maybe not), and over time 'B' becomes very dependent on the donations they are getting from 'A'. Then say they start to have a conflict of interest, and 'A' drops funding(which probably kills 'B'). Who's the bad guy here? How…

It's a simple issue, bar entities that should not have conflicts of interest from accepting gifts/investment/etc that could create a conflict of interest. It is appalling how US senators are allowed to receive gifts or be compensated in creative ways by companies.

Those prohibitions are in place. I think you are confused...