[bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco

[Dave Burstein]

The data is excellent, "Astroturf" is not. It's a very well done study with
enough detail I'm going to report something like "Google spending millions
to buy influence in DC & Europe." IT's also a convenient list of papers on
key topics, some of which I missed. It's important to know who is funding
what and to doublecheck with unbiased sources.

But the Astroturf assertion is offbase. I know about two-thirds of the
authors, the vast bulk of whom are legitimate scholars and similar. I'd
retain the title "Astroturf" for people and organizations whose primary
work is promoting the policies of the companies paying them. Astroturf is a
plague in D.C. Some are organizations created by pr agencies; others are
"consulting firms; some call themselves "think tanks."  While some of them
do good work, most of it should be ignored. Reporters never should use any
of their work without strong confirmation.

Dave

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
wrote:

> The CFA is also not as transparent as it urges everyone else to be, it has
> refused to say who funds it in the past, has no details of who funds it on
> its website, either - though Oracle confirmed at one point it was one of
> its funders.
>
>
> On 13 Jul 2017, at 20:08, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
> But here's an article putting the other side of the story:
>
> http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635
>
> We place Google Policy Fellows at EFF, too.  Does that mean that whatever
> work they do for the rest of their careers is tainted by the few thousand
> they received to support their living expenses as an EFF fellow?
>
> On 13/7/17 3:21 am, parminder wrote:
>
> Google has spent millions funding academic research in the US and Europe
> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/europe-news> to try to influence
> public opinion and policymakers, a watchdog has claimed.
>
> Over the last decade, Google has funded research papers that appear to
> support the technology company’s business interests and defend against
> regulatory challenges such as antitrust and anti-piracy, the US-based
> Campaign for Accountability (CfA) said in a report
> <https://campaignforaccountability.org/new-report-reveals-googles-extensive-financial-support-for-academia/>
> .
>
> “Google uses its immense wealth and power to attempt to influence
> policymakers at every level,” said Daniel Stevens, CfA executive director.
>
> ................
>
> Academics were directly funded by Google in more than half of the cases
> and in the rest of the cases funded indirectly by groups or institutions
> supported by Google, the CfA said. Authors, who were paid between $5,000
> and $400,000 (£3,900-£310,000) by Google, did not disclose the source of
> their funding in 66% of all cases, and in 26% of those cases directly
> funded by Google, according to the report.
>
> ...........
> “Whenever Google’s bad behaviour is exposed, it invariably points the
> finger at someone else,” said Stevens. “Instead of deflecting blame, Google
> should address its record of academic astroturfing, which puts it in the
> same league as big oil and big tobacco
> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/series/tobacco-a-deadly-business>.”
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/13/google-
> millions-academic-research-influence-opinion
>
> As we know Google has recently been fined $ 2.7 billion for
> anti-competitive practices by the EU regulator, which only means that in
> all countries that are too weak to take on google (or benefit from its
> profits, meaning the US) Google remains in violation of competition (and
> many other) laws..... All this Google funded research and advocacy, of dont
> regulate the Internet (read, Internet companies), are playing a dangerous
> game, seriously compromising public interest.
>
> It is time we declare the honeymoon of civil society and academic love for
> digital global corporations over. They are today like big oil companies --
> no doubt the latter provide what is still the main energy resource that
> keeps our societies ticking but in the bargain they very often, and
> systemically, indulge in stuff that needs academics and NGOs to be watching
> against. It is pretty difficult to undertake such watching while taking
> considerable money from them. It is a simple truism, but the digital sector
> tends to ignore it.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm@eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333>
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
Editor, Fast Net News, WIreless One.news, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
Author with Jennie Bourne  DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great,
Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20170713/79bfb8e7/attachment.htm>