Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcoffland | Hacker News Reader

Great story but I fail to see the connection. This is a case of don't shit where you eat. If you want to speak out against Google then don't belong to an organization funded by Google.

View on HN

That organization doesn't say on it's website "we are a Google PR firm", or "we will never criticize Google", they imply they are an "independent think-tank not influenced by money".

And this isn't a Google-created group where you'd dig into their founders/records a little and be able to see that they're a Google PR firm. It's just that Google (among other companies?) has successfully given them funding to a degree where they can no longer afford to annoy Google.

Said another way, the organization has become successful enough in their messaging for Google to become annoyed.

That's exactly how we got to the situation we're in with climate change. The fact that corporate money can hold so much influence over what we research, what we say, and therefore what we know and believe, is and has already proved itself to be dangerous.

Thought provoking comparison. But it illuminates a key difference in assumptions. Climate change is objectively bad, and one of the greatest problems society faces. It is wrong for corporations to silence the truth about climate change.

OTOH I don't think Google is a clear and present danger to the world, and I don't think criticism of Google is objective truth; hence I don't think this is an evil act from Google.

I do believe that corporate money should not even be in this equation. Unfortunately, the strong governmental influence necessary for that to be true is an unlikely reality in the US.

If Google cannot handle some criticism from a "supposedly friendly entity" (since they are bank rolled by Google), this shows their level of arrogance and the unwillingness to change their ways.

You need to evolve with time. Especially a tech company like Google failing to understand that is rather sad.

Now Google has set precedence that they will not tolerate anything critical. So, the consultants & advisor will just praise Google till the day it sinks.

To me it seems mooching off Google while criticizing their policies is not tolerated. It is not too dissimilar than Damore's firing from Google which was unsurprisingly justified as policy matter.

The only difference I see is last case was of some hated conservative chump but this time it is of "independent intellectual"

Its becoming much harder to be an organization that in some way does not benefit from larger corporations. Asking anyone to first get their funding right then get their free speech right is not the right order IMO although in an ideal world it would be great. What if the funding takes a long time to sort out? Don't do free speech until then?

How is this a free speech issue?

Pray tell how this is a free speech issue. Open Markets is free to go say their piece elsewhere. Why are they entitled to speak freely under New America?

I get what you are saying, but the problem is that writing under the auspices of that group increases your audience quite a bit I'd imagine.

what counts as funded by Google?

if you have a media product that is monetized through ads and you put Google ads on your site, are you funded by Google?

if you are a member of a political party that Google made contributions to, are you funded by Google?

Could just as easily be restated: If you don't want to speak out against China then don't live in China. Increasingly these transnational corporations have become in some cases more powerful than states, recording our every movement online and offline, curating what news we read and pushing their agendas and biases.

I didn't have any trouble choosing not to buy Echo/Alexis/whatever.

Yet. First it will be extra features and conveniences to miss; after some time (cheaper hardware etc etc) it will become feasible that all nontrivial Amazon interactions must go through Alexa.

Alexa is never going to reach the market penetration necessary for that to be plausible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com