
Tell Google: Stop Killing Monopoly Research - kushti
https://citizensagainstmonopoly.org/
======
melikeburgers
I really don't understand why Google should fund this research. It's really
not in their best interests.

Why can't the Open Markets team just find new funders? With this type of
publicity, I'm sure many corporations and even individuals would step up.

I think the bigger problem is that the Open Market's team miscalculated that
the New America foundation would have the flexibility and/or courage to stand
behind this project vs stand up to Google.

It just seems a bit entitled to ask Google to fund research that can hurt them
as a company.

~~~
hwillis
You're conflating New America with Open Markets. Google is one of New
America's funders, and Open Markets is a group inside New America. Google is
using it's funds to influence New America's behavior.

Do you think it's ethical for a company funding a news agency to influence
what they publish? The same would logically go for research. Google should be
free to chose to fund or not fund New America, but they should not be able to
use that funding for influence. That's unethical.

Furthermore there definitely is an argument for Google's behavior being
unethical regardless. Acting in your self-interest is not unconditionally
ethical. By analogy: a person absolutely has a personal responsibility to
inform others if they are dangerous. It would be unethical to hide the fact
that I'm not a safe driver, or that I'm prone to psychotic rages. Google is
not ethically excused if their monopoly is deleterious to the public good just
because saying it would affect their bottom line.

~~~
EGreg
"Do you think it's ethical for a company funding a news agency to influence
what they publish?"

Every news agency's owners and advertisers influence what they publish. The
argument from ethics is an interesting one. I know many advertisers who pull
their funding from a show whose host said something controversial. They make
the network fire the host and cancel a show etc.

~~~
hwillis
Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's journalistically
valuable. For instance if a host does something that the company considers
unethical (eg a controversial statement that may or may not be true but is
definitely damaging), they have an ethical responsibility to pull their
business, even if it's actually against their own self interest. If you
instead consider truth to be more important, then companies are also justified
in pulling their business if they think the controversial statement is
obviously false.

The unethical part of what google is doing is that there is very little chance
they are not acting entirely in their own self-interest. There is an entire
additional stratum of arguments underneath that which are about the real
truth, freedom of speech, and whether it is okay to block what people think
based on your opinions.

~~~
EGreg
"May or may not be true, but definitely damaging" sounds like what these guys
were publishing.

Lots of opinions are damaging to someone or someone's agenda if taken
seriously by enough people.

Do you really think these other corporate sponsors don't think about what's
good for them and their image when they pull funding? You have to compare
apples to apples. Google should be compared to other corporate sponsors of
projects.

------
mncharity
Two quick thoughts.

I very briefly glanced under the technical covers of this campaign. For the
curious, citizensagainstmonopoly.org was created 2017-08-10T18:56:36Z. The
site was apparently written by middleseat.co - "Middle Seat is a digital
marketing, media and organizing firm advocating for progressive candidates and
causes." Its principals are the former Bernie Sanders digital and social media
directors and advisor (Zack Exley, frm Wikimedia Foundation).

Microsoft has a long history of funding, encouraging, and astroturfing
opposition to Google. One easy approach to discouraging this behavior is to
make sure Microsoft is mentioned whenever a Google "evil monopoly" campaign
goes by. Especially if it mentions Facebook and Amazon as well, but leaves out
Microsoft. So I mention it in passing here, mostly to illustrate the approach.
I know of nothing connecting Microsoft with the current campaign.

FWIW.

~~~
tomjakubowski
> Microsoft has a long history of funding, encouraging, and astroturfing
> opposition to Google.

What exactly have they done to this effect? The closest I can think of is
Scroogled [1], which was pretty transparently a Microsoft marketing campaign.
I would hardly characterize it as "astroturfing".

[1]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20130207164132/http://www.scroog...](https://web.archive.org/web/20130207164132/http://www.scroogled.com/)

~~~
wdr1
Microsoft caught 'astroturfing' bloggers again to promote Internet Explorer

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/2365060/microsoft-caught-
astr...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2365060/microsoft-caught-astroturfing-
bloggers-again-to-promote-internet-explorer.html)

Confirmed: Ben Edelman Paid by Microsoft, Attacks Google

[http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for-
monop...](http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for-monopolist/)

Astroturfing Antitrust: How Microsoft is Crafting the Grassroots Case Against
Google

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/astroturfing-antitrust-how-
micr...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/astroturfing-antitrust-how-microsoft-is-
crafting-the-grassroots-case-against-google/)

Who’s Behind This Shadow Group Attacking Google?

[http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/google-transparency-
project/](http://fortune.com/2016/04/27/google-transparency-project/)

------
2_listerine_pls
If Google's doing something they don't want anyone to regulate, maybe they
shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

~~~
darawk
There are plenty of instances where someone may want to avoid regulation for
purely legitimate reasons. Regulation is an added cost. Sometimes that cost is
justified, sometimes it's not. But whether or not it is justified, the cost is
present. So, it is perfectly possible and reasonable for a company to want to
avoid being regulated without having malicious intent.

~~~
arctux
I think he's referencing

>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't
be doing it in the first place

-Eric Schmidt

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/)

------
elefanten
Getting really sick of this story. Open Markets really comes across sleazy
when you read the emails published by New America. [1] Slaughter's second
statement, via Medium, is also worth reading. [2] Combined with the fact that
Open Markets has been publishing anti-Google stuff for years while Google
funded New America, Barry Lynn's side of the story make no sense at all.

Honestly, if you read some Barry Lynn and Matt Stoler and other people in that
Open Markets crew... it's like 90% empty and loud rhetoric and maybe 10%
cogent argumentation. It feels like a big circular link fest, takes so long to
find something meaty. So much smoke and mirrors and equivocation on key
terms... like, for example, "monopoly".

I'm not saying there aren't good questions to raise about Google's power,
Google's anti-competitive practices or Google's link to research.

But the tone and quality of this public surge of the conversation driven by
the Open Market 'scandal' seems highly manufactured and low quality. I can
only assume some larger forces are throwing a ton of money in as well. But I
guess that's how policy and economic talk tends to go when it hits the
mainstream.

Edit: have to admit it's also riling me up that the pretty-far-left
progressives like Stoller are happily now joining up with Tucker Carlson and
that ilk, who raking Google over the coals for the James Damore memo fallout.
Stoller was on Tucker's show yesterday. High fives.

[1] [https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press-
releases/intere...](https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press-
releases/interest-transparency-new-america-releases-email-correspondence-
barry-lynn/)

[2] [https://medium.com/@slaughteram/when-the-truth-is-messy-
and-...](https://medium.com/@slaughteram/when-the-truth-is-messy-and-
hard-1655a36e313f)

~~~
droopyEyelids
I've been following this closely, and having read everything Slaughter writes,
I don't see how you can come down so hard against open markets- They
exaggerated what happened but the essential facts are never disputed- even in
Slaughter's most recent post.

1) Open Markets didn't let Slaughter know they were publishing work critical
of Google.

2) Slaughter had to rush to explain the work to Google.

3) Schmidt expressed his displeasure. But didn't directly request anyone be
fired

4) Slaughter told Open Markets they had to part ways, and mentioned how OM
could make it harder for all of NA to get funding.

Thats the essence of the story, and no one is disputing it, and it strongly
indicates New America is heavily influenced by their corporate sponsors.

Where were the exaggerations:

Barry didn't mention that he had aggreed to allow Slaughter to preview work
and show it to google before he published. Also, Slaughter didn't outright
fire anyone at OM. HOWEVER, Slaughter is bending the truth to imply that
Google/Schmidt didn't influence her decision to remove open markets, when the
entire scope of problems she has with Barry and OM come from the tension
between Google and OM, and Google's desire to see what OM will publish before
it becomes public. She writes a lot about how what OM says is false without
EVER addressing the core issue! Instead, she tries to get around it by leaning
on the fact that she was not commanded to do anything by Google.

~~~
elefanten
Slaughter's July 7 email (3rd one on the page) to Lynn says "telling me one
thing and doing another was just the last instance of a pattern of behavior
that has been troubling to myself and your colleagues for over a year"

In multiple places, she indicates he's been difficult to work with and
insubordinate. Probably understandable that a federated institution like New
America, with multuple parallel units working on different interests, doesn't
want the bullshit a person like that brings into the mix.

As her statement says, they tried to part amicably and leaving Open Markets
intact and independent. Looks like Open Markets went for the publicity grab.
Doesn't make me a fan.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
It's obvious Slaughter strangled the group. She joined four years ago, three
years in his group is being forced to spin out because they won't communicate.
So from the emails it seems to me that they need to notify Slaughter everytime
the publish something for a sponsor and then there is probably some level of
pushback levied when this happens. Well New America has Google and Comcast and
AT&T and Microsoft and Facebook as sponsors along with about a hundred others.
Realistically, the new boss, Slaughter, just wasn't able or willing to stand
up to corporate pressure in order to allow Open Markets to do it's job. Lynn
was put into a no-win situation as anyone who's ever had a boss who won't
fight for you can tell you.

------
stephengillie
Organizations should not accept funding from donors with incongruent
philosophies, as this leads to conflicts of interest.

~~~
bigeasy
Accepting funding from donors with congruent philosophies opens them up to the
criticism that they are paid activists and not academic researches.

------
ewjordan
So...it's evil for Google to not want to fund a group that has people actively
working towards hurting Google's business interests?

Meh.

Find a hand to feed you that's not the one you're currently trying to bite.
There are plenty out there, you'll be fine.

------
Aron
What's with the evil looking octopus?

~~~
droopyEyelids
Octopuses have a long tradition of representing monopoly.

They're a natural analogy for the way a monopoly's reach impacts different
areas of life.

[http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/48508d5f59aa4bcaa900cb7da0d1c29f/p...](http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/48508d5f59aa4bcaa900cb7da0d1c29f/political-
cartoon-entitled-next-showing-a-standard-oil-tank-as-an-cwanj9.jpg)

------
perpetualcrayon
"When our research team at the New America Institute criticized Google's
monopoly practices..."

I might be wrong, but this doesn't sound like research to me...

------
will_brown
I am all for the little guy fighting the big guy...but this isn't it, this is
the antithesis of _it_.

What this is amounts to: You were getting millions of dollars from Google and
only now that the money is gone you conveniently you have a bone to pick. If
you really believed Google was evil as your website claims you wouldn't have
been taking Google money until the day it was revoked.

How long does this group need to perform _research_ into Google's anti-
competitive behavior and how much money do they need? It seems all you need to
do is try to compete or happen to be a market leader where google decides to
compete and you have all the evidence you need.

Internet search market share = x%

using that dominance and information on search terms and advertising dollars
to determine what market to compete in next in how many occasions= x

advertising costs increased when google began competing = x%

# of companies that were advertising on google that shut down once google
began competing = x

What are the actual goals and what are the actual methods to achieve these
goals other than asking for money to replace Google's money to conduct
research?

I have been talking about it for some time, it starts with empowering people,
show people they can take on google and win. Start small, give the people a
road map and execute. Try a google search boycott, inform the public when the
boycott begins, inform the public how to set their devices/computers to a
google competitor, and create your list of demands. My recommendation start
small, but meaningful, give an achievable goal that is understandable to the
public and sets the stage for the public to wake up and accept the facts that
they wield all the power but also impacts googles pocket. Create a clear cut
economic line in the sand, you are either on your side or on you are in
Google's pocket, you pick. In short, highlight their tax avoidance scheme in
Ireland, they are headquartered in the US right? But they claim to be
headquartered in Ireland to avoid paying taxes in they very country they
benefit from...boycott their search engine until they stop playing the tax
game, make them sign a pledge or even contract agreeing to pay the US
corporate tax, including, all back taxes. Is that fair to Google? Are they
alone? Most assuredly not, but its not about Google, its about tearing back
the veil on the perceived power struggle, does Google owe the people or do
people owe Google?

------
ocdtrekkie
So, I am supportive of Open Markets' goals and all, but "Tell Google: Stop
Killing Monopoly Research" seems... mistargeted? If Google is the problem, we
shouldn't be trying to tell Google to do something not in their own interests,
we should be telling others, like regulators, to do something about Google.

"Tell Google" is directing your complaint at the wrong party.

------
summer_steven
Using government power to forcefully break up a publicly owned company is such
a barbaric way of doing things.

Here are some better suggestions: 1\. Force government institutions to use
alternative search engines 2\. Have government institutions nominate a "search
engine of the month" and all their employees must use that 3\. Subsidize
search engine research in the public domain 4\. Determine if any search engine
patents are blocking innovation, and invalidate those patents 5\. Subsidize
research into decentralized search engines

~~~
MrTonyD
It isn't barbaric to break up a company - at all.

Companies operate in our society, and they impact the citizens of our society.
It is reasonable to directly stop a company when it is working against the
shared values of our society.

Really, I would argue that it is barbaric to force a society to live with a
company which ignores the wider interests of society.

~~~
kazinator
Maybe if you owned one you'd feel differently.

Can I reach into your backpack and crush your bag of potato chips?

What's the matter; all the baked potato material is still there!

~~~
noobermin
I'm pretty sure you can understand how much of a false equivalency it is to
compare a bag of chips with a powerful entity like Google.

