[bestbits] [governance] Google exercises its funding muscle

Fri Sep 1 08:08:33 EDT 2017

Hi McTim,

Please don’t assume people that have a different read of something than you do haven’t read the material. I have.

Thanks,

Ayden Férdeline
[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [governance] Google exercises its funding muscle
> Local Time: 1 September 2017 1:02 PM
> UTC Time: 1 September 2017 12:02
> From: dogwallah at gmail.com
> To: Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com>
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>, BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>
> you need to read the NA statement that I sent AND the emails for context.
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did read the emails in the link that I shared. I still think it reflects
>> poorly on New America.
>>
>> May I suggest you read through this Twitter thread to see how New America’s
>> response is factually incorrect.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Google exercises its funding muscle
>> Local Time: 1 September 2017 12:17 PM
>> UTC Time: 1 September 2017 11:17
>> From: dogwallah at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com>
>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>, BestBitsList
>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If you read more than the hit pieces about this, it does not reflect
>> pporly on New America at all.
>>
>> The guy acted like douchebag, they gave him loads of chances to do
>> the right thing, he refused to take them.
>>
>> read the emails in the link you provided, then read this one:
>>
>> https://www.newamerica.org/new-america/press-releases/new-americas-response-new-york-times/
>>
>> "Statement to be attributed to Anne-Marie Slaughter, CEO of New America:
>>
>> Today’s New York Times story implies that Google lobbied New America
>> to expel the Open Markets program because of this press release. I
>> want to be clear: this implication is absolutely false."
>>
>> The "anti-Google at all costs" types see this as red meat for their
>> cause. Sad. Bigly Sad.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> McTim
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>> I think the incident reflects far more poorly on the part of New America
>>> than it does Google. I notice they have now published on their website
>>> some
>>> correspondence between their CEO and the terminated staffer, but what is
>>> lacking is the correspondence between their CEO and Google executives on
>>> this matter. Perhaps we could ask for some more transparency around that.
>>> I
>>> find we are often very quick to denounce the activities of governments and
>>> platforms (as we should), but seem to give think tanks, conservative and
>>> libertarian, free reign to behave how they like. Maybe this is a bit of an
>>> over-simplification but that is my perception at least as to how they are
>>> held accountable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Google exercises its funding muscle
>>> Local Time: 1 September 2017 6:00 AM
>>> UTC Time: 1 September 2017 05:00
>>> From: parminder at itforchange.net
>>> To: BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> two more articles on the same issue
>>>
>>> Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant
>>> By KENNETH P. VOGEL
>>> Aug 30 2017
>>>
>>> <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html>
>>>
>>> AND
>>>
>>> New America Foundation Head Anne-Marie Slaughter Botches Laundering
>>> Google’s Money, Fires Anti-Trust Team at Eric Schmidt’s Behest -
>>> 08/31/2017 - Yves Smith
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/new-america-foundation-head-anne-marie-slaughter-botches-laundering-googles-money.html
>>>
>>>
>>> We should ideally be doing a statement on this very significant and
>>> structural issue, basic to civil society work in this area. What do people
>>> here say?
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday 01 September 2017 10:26 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>> Quotes from the below article, which connects to the discussion (or non
>>> discussion) we recently had here on Google"s funding of non profit/
>>> academic
>>> research in digital area.
>>>
>>> Firing Lynn and his team “raises a lot of questions,” a Warren aide told
>>> HuffPost. Warren, herself, later tweeted her concerns.
>>>
>>> A senior aide to a progressive House Democrat, who commented on the
>>> condition of anonymity, called the firings “an example of the way that
>>> funding think tanks is a way to achieve policy outcomes, in the same way
>>> that lobbying and funding campaigns is. It’s a business expense.”
>>>
>>> Jonathan Taplin, the author of Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook,
>>> Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy, was more
>>> blunt
>>> in his assessment of what happened at New America.
>>>
>>> “It’s just classic monopoly muscle,” he told HuffPost. “This is the way
>>> bullies act.”
>>>
>>> Google Just Proved That Monopolies Imperil Democracy, Not Just The Economy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/google-monopoly-barry-lynn_us_59a738fde4b010ca289a1155?section=us_politics
>>>
>>> Barry Lynn and his team of anti-monopoly researchers were fired by a think
>>> tank after criticizing the search giant.
>>>
>>> WASHINGTON ― For the past decade, former business journalist Barry Lynn
>>> has
>>> used his perch at the New America Foundation to warn politicians and the
>>> public that a new era of corporate monopolies threatened not only American
>>> workers, but also democracy itself.
>>>
>>> Lynn was just proven right: New America has fired him as head of its Open
>>> Markets program along with his team of about 10 researchers and
>>> journalists,
>>> after they called for an antitrust investigation of the think tank’s
>>> largest
>>> longtime donor, Google.
>>>
>>> On June 27, the Open Markets team in a 150-word statement called for the
>>> Federal Trade Commission to follow the lead of the European Union, which
>>> leveled a $2.7 billion fine on Google for violating antitrust laws. Since
>>> New America’s start in 1999, Google has given it $21 million. And Eric
>>> Schmidt, the executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc., Google’s parent
>>> company,
>>> served as New America’s chairman from 2008 through mid-2016.
>>>
>>> According to a report on Wednesday in The New York Times, Lynn was called
>>> on
>>> the carpet by New America head Anne-Marie Slaughter shortly after the Open
>>> Markets program praised the E.U.’s decision to find Google in violation of
>>> antitrust law for providing preferential placement to its own products and
>>> those of its subsidiaries over its rivals in search results. Schmidt, the
>>> Times reported, had expressed to Slaughter his “displeasure” with the
>>> statement backing the E.U.’s move.
>>>
>>> Slaughter, according to an email obtained by the Times, told Lynn that he
>>> and his team had to leave New America. The firing was, “in no way based on
>>> the content of your work,” she wrote, while also saying Lynn was
>>> “imperiling
>>> the institution as a whole.”
>>>
>>> Two current members of the Open Markets team confirmed this timeline of
>>> events to HuffPost. Lynn and his Open Markets colleagues were told to
>>> depart
>>> New America two days after the statement that supported the E.U. antitrust
>>> fine and called upon “U.S. enforcers” to “build upon this important
>>> precedent. The team, though, stuck around in an attempt to question New
>>> America’s leadership about whether it really wanted to fire the entire
>>> group.
>>>
>>> “We were trying to be, like, ’Are you sure you want to do this because it
>>> sort of seems bad,” Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Program,
>>> told
>>> HuffPost. “Are you sure you want to prove us right? Are you sure you want
>>> to
>>> back a monopoly in such an obvious and clumsy way? We were negotiating
>>> with
>>> them.” (Stoller is an occasional HuffPost contributor.)
>>>
>>> Despite those negotiations, Slaughter on Wednesday officially terminated
>>> Lynn and his team.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Slaughter disputed the Times story, saying in a statement that the claim
>>> “that Google lobbied New America to expel the Open Markets program” was
>>> “false.” Instead, she said that Lynn refused “to adhere to New America’s
>>> standards of openness and institutional collegiality.” She offered no
>>> explanation for firing the entire Open Markets team.
>>>
>>> A Google spokeswoman denied any involvement in Lynn’s firing in an email
>>> to
>>> HuffPost. She also said that Schmidt did not threaten to cut off funding
>>> for
>>> the think tank because of the Open Markets statement on Google’s antitrust
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> “We support hundreds of organizations that promote a free and open
>>> Internet,
>>> greater access to information, and increased opportunity,” Riva Sciuto,
>>> the
>>> Google spokesperson, said in the statement. “We don’t agree with every
>>> group
>>> 100 percent of the time, and while we sometimes respectfully disagree, we
>>> respect each group’s independence, personnel decisions, and policy
>>> perspectives.”
>>>
>>> New America did not immediately respond to a request for comment to
>>> HuffPost.
>>>
>>> Lynn is now building an independent think tank to continue his
>>> anti-monopoly
>>> work with his New America team. The group has already launched a campaign
>>> aimed at mobilizing public opposition to the power of modern-day
>>> monopolies
>>> by highlighting Google’s power to quash independent research like that by
>>> the Open Markets team.
>>>
>>> Its supporters say this case underscores that argument.
>>>
>>> Lynn and his colleagues “have long argued that monopolies are a problem
>>> for
>>> the economy, but they’re also a problem for democracy,” Zephyr Teachout, a
>>> fellow at Open Markets and board member of its new campaign ― called
>>> Citizens Against Monopolies ― told HuffPost. “This kind of proves the
>>> point.”
>>>
>>> It’s not as though the Open Markets team needed to get fired to buttress
>>> their concerns about monopoly power. Their efforts already have been
>>> influential ― more so than work by many other think tanks.
>>>
>>> The Democratic Party recently adopted the team’s warnings about monopolies
>>> in its “A Better Deal” platform. Politicians ― including Sens. Elizabeth
>>> Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep.
>>> Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) ― are pushing for enhanced antitrust enforcement and
>>> calling out concentrations of economic power more than before.
>>>
>>> Open Markets has helped lead the economic debate to a “more populist
>>> strain
>>> over the past couple of years,” Marshall Steinbaum, a fellow at the
>>> progressive economics think tank Roosevelt Institute, told HuffPost.
>>>
>>> Firing Lynn and his team “raises a lot of questions,” a Warren aide told
>>> HuffPost. Warren, herself, later tweeted her concerns.
>>>
>>> A senior aide to a progressive House Democrat, who commented on the
>>> condition of anonymity, called the firings “an example of the way that
>>> funding think tanks is a way to achieve policy outcomes, in the same way
>>> that lobbying and funding campaigns is. It’s a business expense.”
>>>
>>> Jonathan Taplin, the author of Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook,
>>> Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy, was more
>>> blunt
>>> in his assessment of what happened at New America.
>>>
>>> “It’s just classic monopoly muscle,” he told HuffPost. “This is the way
>>> bullies act.”
>>>
>>> The internal workings of New America, though, is not the real issue,
>>> Stoller
>>> said. The public needs to recognize Google as an autocratic private power
>>> that is exerting itself in the economy and in policy to increase its own
>>> power over people, he argued.
>>>
>>> “We love a lot of the people at New America,” Stoller said. “We think
>>> their
>>> work is great. ... This is not an issue of New America. This is an issue
>>> about monopoly and Google.”
>>>
>>> And Google is undeniably a monopoly. Just ask monopoly proponent and
>>> billionaire investor Peter Thiel, who has said the company is able to
>>> offer
>>> so many wonderful perks to its employees because it doesn’t have to worry
>>> too much about competition. It controls 80 percent of the market for
>>> online
>>> search and 54 percent of the browser market in the U.S.
>>>
>>> Google and Facebook, another powerful online platform monopoly, have
>>> gobbled
>>> up practically every new online advertising dollar (thanks to their past
>>> acquisitions of online advertising companies) in recent years while
>>> pressuring news organizations, including HuffPost, to publish directly to
>>> their platforms. Google’s control of internet search has given it the
>>> power
>>> to squeeze money away from other websites (see: CelebrityNetWorth.com and
>>> Yelp.com). Google’s dominant position as an advertising seller has also
>>> given it increasing power over newsrooms (although not as much as
>>> Facebook).
>>>
>>> The company ― which once went by the motto “Don’t be evil” ― has also
>>> sought
>>> to replicate its economic power in political and policy spheres.
>>>
>>> Google has previously sought to pressure a nonprofit over its criticism of
>>> the company. In 2009, Google’s head of public policy reached out to the
>>> foundation funding the California-based Consumer Watchdog to warn it about
>>> continuing to underwrite the work by the pro-privacy group. That work was
>>> critical of many of Google’s privacy policies.
>>>
>>> In the past decade, Google also has poured tens of millions of dollars
>>> into
>>> campaign contributions, lobbying firms, think tanks and policy nonprofits
>>> in
>>> the past decade.
>>>
>>> This political investment soared after 2011 when Google’s antitrust issues
>>> first came under the microscope. Its lobbying expenses doubled from $9.6
>>> million in 2011 to $18.2 million in 2012, and have not fallen below $15
>>> million since. In 2011, Google gave grants to 44 different nonprofits and
>>> think tanks. That number jumped to 81 in 2012 and now sits at 170.
>>>
>>> Goggle executives enjoyed unrivaled access to the White House under
>>> President Barack Obama, visiting hundreds of times, according to Secret
>>> Service visitor logs. Google has also pumped millions of dollars into
>>> research at universities, often to buttress its public policy positions,
>>> and
>>> is pushing its own agenda for public school education across the country.
>>>
>>> Google’s huge increase in political investment post-2011 was in direct
>>> reaction to the Federal Trade Commission opening an antitrust
>>> investigation
>>> into whether it abused its market position in internet searches. The FTC
>>> commissioners eventually dropped the investigation in exchange for small
>>> concessions by the company, despite a report by the agency’s legal team
>>> that
>>> labeled Google a “monopoly” and supported a full investigation.
>>>
>>> “The ‘A’ word is the one thing that can stop the music,” Luther Lowe,
>>> Yelp’s
>>> vice president of public policy, said of Google’s interest in antitrust
>>> issues. “It’s the one that’s an all-hands-on-deck situation.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from this list, click here:
>>>
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/sympa/auto_signoff/governance/dogwallah%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>>
>>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20170901/9ebf087b/attachment.htm>