[bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jul 20 00:55:31 EDT 2017
On Monday 17 July 2017 10:55 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> I am not going to reopen this discussion but Parminder you were on one
> side of it, and there is another side which has a very different
> perspective. I have written a paper which revisits this and gives
> both sides. Here is the link to the preprint:
>
> http://www.malcolm.id.au/owncloud/s/l1khaU4JGiPRnXR
>
> Don't worry the paper is very neutral and even-handed (compared to
> some of our earlier, more heated debates).
I have not yet gone through the paper, but it is amusing that you, being
right in the middle of that controversy yourself, claim neutrality and
even-handedness for yourself, but find it necessary to affix to my
opinions on this issue the qualifying fact that I was on one side of it
:). Anyway, I am pretty proud of which side I was on - that of funding
transparency for public interest organisations.
But if you are indeed neutral you can perhaps tell us now what your view
is about funding transparency of public interest organisations,
especially those that seek to work at such scale as to be a major force
in opinion and policy making circles (and of course unless some
attenuating circumstances are shown which may expose that organisation
to any real danger if it were transparent with its finding) .'
And there is no reason to make it look like that such a discussion is
not an important one for civil society groups and coalitions. Every
outsider considers it a joke that civil society that takes its job to be
to ask tough questions from those who exercise any kind of power runs
away from such questions directed at itself.
parminder
>
> On 17/7/17 2:44 am, parminder wrote:
>>
>> Thanks James, you are very clear, and indeed I agree.
>>
>> These are clear and specific requirements of academic and civil
>> society transparency, which should be upheld by all
>>
>> Alas though some participating groups asked for the same in the
>> initial years of this bestbits coalition, in terms of those
>> organisations that become key steer-ers of this global coalition. The
>> involved major groups refused to divulge their funding (like as you
>> mention, with an end of year annual reporting and such), and the
>> people/ groups who had asked for accountability were kind of pushed
>> off the group. One of them was a listed founding member of bestbits
>> who asked to be removed from the list of founders as a consequence of
>> this disagreement. Sorry, I digress here perhaps. But then just
>> saying that, unfortunately, this civil society coalition itself does
>> not pass the criterion of "transparency" that you rightly frame.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Monday 17 July 2017 01:40 PM, James Gannon wrote:
>>>
>>> Hope I’m interpreting the question right but I would 100% support a
>>> requirement that where direct funding has been received by a civil
>>> society actor or an academic to support a campaign or a paper that
>>> that is disclosed as part of the documentation (Campaign info or in
>>> the acknowledgements of the paper/research).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For indirect funding I think that yes similar to a non-profits 990
>>> at the end of the fiscal year there should be a reporting of sources
>>> of indirect funding by both groups also. Topically webfoundations
>>> donor page is a great example
>>> http://webfoundation.org/about/funding-partners/
>>> <http://webfoundation.org/about/funding-partners/>, now an argument
>>> might be made that that might be a lot of overhead for an academic,
>>> maybe that is an opportunity for CS is out space to help, a small
>>> project setup to help academics report on their funding, I certainly
>>> don’t know of many academics that are looking to actively hide their
>>> funding, but rather there is no easy or standardised way of
>>> reporting it leading to situations like we have now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If this is not what your were aiming at please feel free to steer me
>>> in the right direction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>> *Sent:* 17 July 2017 05:51
>>> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>; Renata Avila
>>> <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>; Jeremy Malcolm
>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <
>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in same
>>> league as big oil and big tobacco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday 14 July 2017 01:32 AM, James Gannon wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree on the final point for sure and 100% on transparency.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, everybody is for 100 % transparency, but then only till we
>>> actually begin to talk what that means.
>>>
>>> So let me ask you, James, what would the 100% transparency be that
>>> you agree with..... Like civil society groups should disclose their
>>> funding (unless compelling circumstances which makes is
>>> counter-productive can be proved)? This is a long history of that
>>> discussion in the matter of formation and governance of this very
>>> group bestbits. Maybe you can contribute to it. Look forward to
>>> hearing your response.
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org]
>>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 21:00
>>> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>
>>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>; Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> <
>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google in
>>> same league as big oil and big tobacco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I respectfully disagree on your restrictive interpretation of
>>> ICANN mission.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also disagree on relaxing accountability on who funds academic
>>> research and its impact. On the contrary, I think limiting our
>>> work to some sort of transparency is insufficient. Strict
>>> accountability is needed to limit the power of such powerful
>>> companies (which are involved in broader sectors, like defense,
>>> health, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We need more and better accountability and also make visible how
>>> big companies (as big Pharma did) are influencing through lobby,
>>> research and "philanthropy" the public agendas and apply the
>>> experience from other sector, like public health and the
>>> environment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Happy to continue the dialogue off list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>>
>>> Renata Avila
>>>
>>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
>>>
>>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>>
>>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org*
>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:52 PM, James Gannon
>>> <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> No because the auction funds are also bounded by ICANN mission.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that we should trust academics to be able to conduct
>>> research in an independent manner, that we need to stop
>>> looking at the GAFA conspiracy theories and that we
>>> shouldn’t sully those academics who are working on critical
>>> areas of research for us by claiming that once they are ever
>>> ‘tainted’ by corporate funding that they should forever have
>>> to walk around with a a Google/FB/etc disclaimer on every
>>> word they write or talk they give or opinion they express.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Renata Avila [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>]
>>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:31
>>>
>>>
>>> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
>>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>>; Jeremy Malcolm
>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>;
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> <
>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts Google
>>> in same league as big oil and big tobacco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, there is more:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The proceeds from New gTLD Program auctions, *which will
>>> total more than $230 million, are being reserved.* The
>>> multistakeholder community will develop proposals for how
>>> these proceeds could be distributed. A community-based
>>> drafting team is currently working on a charter for a
>>> Cross-Community Working Group that will create
>>> recommendations for Board consideration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My point:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Google funds everything, especially advocacy and research
>>> in poor countries.
>>>
>>> - If not google, it is Facebook.
>>>
>>> - That harms legitimacy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Funds are really scarce for research, advocacy and policy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, ICANN = 230 million plus 70 million reserves.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What if we advocate for those funds to *support public
>>> interest research*, via a Foundation or similar, instead of
>>> Google (or other companies) funding research.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it clear now?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>>
>>> Renata Avila
>>>
>>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
>>>
>>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>>
>>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org*
>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:21 PM, James Gannon
>>> <james at cyberinvasion.net <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The ICANN reserve fund is designed to keep ICANN running
>>> in the event of financial distress and is not subject to
>>> any external use outside of ICANN, and even if it was it
>>> would still be bound by ICANNs mission.
>>>
>>> Im not seeing the relationship to the current discussion
>>> at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Renata Avila
>>> [mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>]
>>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:19
>>> *To:* James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
>>> *Cc:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>>; Jeremy Malcolm
>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>;
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> <
>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts
>>> Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Its reserve fund.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It could be modified, any time, to support broader areas...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Figures in USD (millions) Page 9.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Link: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy17-unaudited-financials-31mar17-en.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>> Renata Avila
>>>
>>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
>>>
>>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>>
>>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005,
>>> USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org*
>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter: @webfoundation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:09 PM, James Gannon
>>> <james at cyberinvasion.net
>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate on this piece? What ICANN money,
>>> ICANN does some very limited funding of research but
>>> doesn’t fund anything in the area of advocacy, and
>>> there is very little research that is within ICANNs
>>> mission anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Renata Avila
>>> *Sent:* 13 July 2017 20:05
>>> *To:* Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>>
>>> *Cc:* Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>;
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>> <
>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Accountability group puts
>>> Google in same league as big oil and big tobacco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I second Renata.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our research and advocacy space is suffering from a
>>> funding problem and it is harming its credibility.
>>> It will be great to have a larger pool of funds
>>> supporting our efforts, which are becoming more
>>> mainstream and relevant for the next 50 years
>>> (especially for developing countries). The
>>> production of research is extremely concentrated
>>> and, as austerity is rampant all over the World,
>>> State funding to research is shrinking by the day
>>> even for developed countries at the same pace as tax
>>> evasion (or elusion) (Google is not guilt free in
>>> this
>>> area http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-google-taxes-eu/)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And in small countries, priorities of both
>>> governments and private sector to support research
>>> support traditional areas, such as health or
>>> education. Certainly, local funds are not supporting
>>> local advocacy efforts for privacy, net neutrality,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the problem is deeper and I think that, in
>>> order to continue our work and efforts with
>>> impartiality and credibility, we need a coordinated
>>> effort to get a diverse pool of donors and ways
>>> towards sustainability. I think the comparisons of
>>> Big Oil funding Greenpeace, when we talk about
>>> giants like Facebook or Google, is valid now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What about all the ICANN money? Will it be enough to
>>> fund all global and local advocacy and at least part
>>> of the relevant research? A global fund?
>>> Crowdfunding for advocacy and more pressure on
>>> governments for research?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Renata Avila
>>>
>>> *Senior Digital Rights Advisor*
>>>
>>> renata.avila at webfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:renata.avila at webfoundation.org>
>>>
>>> *1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC
>>> 20005, USA* *| **www.webfoundation.org*
>>> <http://www.webfoundation.org/>* | Twitter:
>>> @webfoundation*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Renata Aquino
>>> Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:raquino at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes it does.
>>>
>>> Unless they are transparent about it and clear
>>> about it not interfering with their research ethics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the public education system in developing
>>> countries it is quite common to see funding
>>> being misused. Researchers who get money from
>>> international organizations, even some national
>>> ones, using public universities to advance an
>>> agenda. And yes, this can be sometimes an
>>> astroturfing exercise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is why access and production of knowledge
>>> needs to be always transparent and public.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately most of internet policy has not
>>> waken up to this yet. I wonder if it ever will.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Em 13/07/2017 15:09, "Jeremy Malcolm"
>>> <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>>
>>> escreveu:
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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 Foundation
>>>
>>> https://eff.org
>>>
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> :: 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
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
> :: 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20170720/47313c71/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list