
How Google Is Bankrolling Friendly Academics - elsewhen
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/googles_insidious_shadow_lobbying_how_the_internet_giant_is_bankrolling_friendly_academics_and_skirting_federal_investigations/
======
thrownaway2424
The article seems to rest on the idea that if Google wasn't funding these
guys, there wouldn't be any academic opinion in their favor. But no less of an
authority on anti-trust than Robert Bork was also against the FTC action[1].
Article also doesn't seem bothered by the fact that the pro-FTC-action group,
fairsearch.org, is a puppet group of Microsoft. If the people spurring FTC
investigations are Google's corporate enemies, it only seems fair for Google
to defend themselves with a bit of academic funding.

[https://www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/bork-sidak-google-
se...](https://www.criterioneconomics.com/docs/bork-sidak-google-search-
oup.pdf)

~~~
cscurmudgeon
Everyone knows Microsoft does not always play nice. Also funding a group is
nowhere the same as manipulating academia slyly (fixing academic conference
speakers). Yikes. Did not expect this from Google.

> Google played an unusually active role in the George Mason conferences. The
> Washington Post has previously published emails showing Google public policy
> representatives giving LEC officials detailed information on what
> regulatory, law enforcement and Congressional staff to invite to the
> conference.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2014/04/12/h...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2014/04/12/how-
google-worked-behind-the-scenes-to-invite-federal-regulators-to-conferences/)

I am from academia. Nowhere do sponsors actively set the agenda for an
academic conference.

~~~
magicalist
> _Nowhere do sponsors actively set the agenda for an academic conference._

Agenda is one thing but that's not what either article is claiming?

It's extremely common (the rule, not the exception) for sponsors to suggest
and directly invite people to conferences (and at least in those published
emails there doesn't appear to be any suggestions for speakers, just
attendees).

~~~
cscurmudgeon
1\. "just attendees " No. More than just attendees. Selecting panel members
e.g.

[http://media.salon.com/2015/11/GMU-
email-2.png](http://media.salon.com/2015/11/GMU-email-2.png)

2\. They are asking people to hide the number of employees from Google
attending this so that the whole thing looks innocuous.

[https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-
apps/imrs.php?src=https://...](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-
apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp-
content/uploads/sites/11/2014/04/email3-1.jpg&w=1484)

~~~
thrownaway2424
That reads to me more like trying to actually diversify the attendance, rather
than trying to hide the overrepresentation of Google. Google faces the same
problem at other conferences, for what it's worth. There were some Lisa /
USENIX type things focused on "site reliability engineering" where Google was
noticeably overrepresented.

~~~
cscurmudgeon
That happened too, but that is not the only thing though. They did the
following two different things.

1\. Trying to diversify attendance 2\. Hiding some attendees from a public
list of all attendees

Trying to diversify attendance != Hiding some attendees from a public list of
all attendees

------
morninj
Brett Glass's head just exploded.

If you're not familiar with him, Brett is a small ISP operator who dependably
interrupts internet policy conversations to accuse pretty much everyone of
shilling for Google. Lessig took the time to write a full rebuttal:
[http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/90048838607/on-the-curious-
cas...](http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/90048838607/on-the-curious-case-of-
brett-glass)

------
crazy1van
My gut reaction to this article's premise is to believe it. However, it's
evidence seems to be pretty lacking.

Consider this passage:

"But before Wright’s confirmation, the FTC already decided against filing
charges against Google, overriding its own staff’s recommendations. Google
only had to voluntarily agree to alter some of its business practices to
resolve the case.

Google’s actions between 2011 and 2013 show how they dodge legal bullets: by
molding elite opinion, using the support of experts and academics as a
firewall against criticism."

It's cleverly worded to make you think that Google bought off the FTC via
Wright, but the chronology of events as the text describes is actually:

1) Google funds Wright. 2) Google agrees to alter its business practices. 3)
FTC agrees not to charge them. 4) Wright is confirmed at the FTC.

~~~
jlarocco
You're leaving out a key issue, which is that the FTC made their decision not
to file charges based on papers and arguments from academics (including
Wright) who were being paid by Google.

~~~
crazy1van
I might be missing it, but I don't think the article ever actually offers any
evidence that academic papers funded by Google influenced FTC decisions.

Granted, I would not be at all surprised if Google hoped the academics they
funded would help influence the FTC. But this article seems to want to
cleverly word things to make the reader think there is evidence for this
without actually presenting any.

~~~
username223
> Granted, I would not be at all surprised if Google hoped the academics they
> funded would help influence the FTC.

As an academic, you live or die by your funding. (Teaching doesn't matter.) To
become a "prominent academic," you probably want to become a chair or at least
faculty at a major university. If Google "guarantees" your funding as long as
you write the things they want written, you have a significant incentive to
look upon them favorably.

There doesn't need to be an email saying "write a paper saying this, and we'll
pay you that." All it takes is a generally-understood and well-funded "hope"
that academics write the things Google wants.

~~~
jsprogrammer
This sounds more like an argument to discredit all academics.

 _Someone_ is funding them all...right?

~~~
username223
You're too cynical. People who are skilled enough don't have to prostitute
themselves as brand sponsors.

~~~
jsprogrammer
I didn't say it was my argument.

>As an academic, you live or die by your funding. (Teaching doesn't matter.)

~~~
username223
I apparently misunderstood. What did you think was my argument to discredit
all academics?

What I wrote was that your value to the department is your funding, not your
teaching. If you're good, the funding takes care of itself; if not, you whore
yourself to whomever you can.

~~~
jsprogrammer
_If_ you read:

>If Google "guarantees" your funding as long as you write the things they want
written, you have a significant incentive to look upon them favorably.

as a type of discrediting due to the source of the "guarantee" on funding,
then:

>As an academic, you live or die by your funding.

implies that all live academics are funded. Funding must come from somewhere
with some form of guarantee. _If_ we can generalize Google to stand in for any
other source of funding, then you have constructed an argument that discredits
all live academics.

------
bcohn91
Thanks to the author for highlighting the insidious effect of soft lobbying.

I'm also interested in difference between American and European approaches to
anti-trust law. From what I understand, US regulators generally look for harm
to the consumer, whereas their European counterparts try to detect harm done
to competitors.

It seems that the European approach might insulate European firms from healthy
competition, while leading to dead-weight loss of consumer surplus.

For example, if Google offers Yelp's reviews up on a Google.com domain, that
might be more convenient for the consumer, who doesn't have to bounce around
to different websites to find an answer. And it also might spur Yelp to find a
way to add unique value to the consumer's experience instead of providing
superfluous services.

------
IBM
Related article: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-
transf...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-
power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-
washington-
influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html)

~~~
gohrt
> In May 2012, the law school at George Mason University hosted a forum billed
> as a “vibrant discussion” about Internet search competition. Many of the
> major players in the field were there — regulators from the Federal Trade
> Commission, federal and state prosecutors, top congressional staffers.

> What the guests had not been told was that the day-long academic conference
> was in large part the work of Google, which maneuvered behind the scenes
> with GMU’s Law & Economics Center to put on the event. At the time, the
> company was under FTC investigation over concerns about the dominance of its
> famed search engine, a case that threatened Google’s core business.

------
declan
Let's not forget about Microsoft's Techpolicy.com, which it describes as "a
forum for academics." Note this is not funding, say, basic research in
computer science; it's a pure policy focus.

I'm not sure if this would also count as "bankrolling friendly academics?"

I don't mean to single out Microsoft; I suspect many large companies do the
same. And maybe the practice is defensible in principle--if academics get
grants from Ford, Rockefeller, MacArthur and other organizations with a pro-
regulation focus, maybe companies should give grants to fund work _skeptical_
of regulation?

------
partiallypro
This isn't all that important, but what is important is that Google (unless
this has changed) spends the most lobbying of any U.S. company. They don't
want to fall victim to what happened to Microsoft in the 90s.

~~~
saucetenuto
Do you have a source for this? According to opensecrets.org, they're in the
top 2 for tech companies (their major rival is Comcast), but they spend much
less than Blue Cross/Blue Shield or the National Association of Realtors. This
has been true since at least 2010 (as far back as I checked).

They do sometimes spend more than Boeing, which I wouldn't have guessed.

~~~
partiallypro
I meant to preface with "tech company." Google is only 9th overall, though
they might have moved up in the past year

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-google-
lobbying...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/us-google-lobbying-
idUSKBN0NC1UO20150421)

------
Animats
George Mason University (formerly George Mason Community College) is a right-
wing lobbying organization. Their "Law and Economics Center", to which Google
donated, says "The vision of the LEC is that if policymakers understand
economics, they will be more likely to make sound decisions that support the
rule of law and the free enterprise system, thus advancing innovation, job
creation, and economic growth. ... LEC is uniquely equipped to positively
affect national policy outcomes."

~~~
dexterdog
Doesn't sound right wing to me. It sounds libertarian, but that doesn't mean
they practice what they preach.

~~~
smadge
Free market libertarianism is right wing.

~~~
tn13
Right wing also refers to "weed should be banned", "abortions are illegal"
type religious lunatics as well. Libertarians often do not like to be called
right wing because they are not.

~~~
freditup
There are reasonable cases to be made for both keeping weed illegal and
banning abortions. Labeling people as lunatics because you disagree with them
is a very dangerous road to go down.

~~~
tn13
Might be, but there is nothing wrong in labeling people I dont like as
lunatics.

------
boot13
So Google is just doing what every other corporation does. This is the reality
of business today.

------
rivertown
Salon!? C'mon people. We can do better than this.

------
tn13
I am unable to see why author has has knickers in twist.

