Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

It's a weird situation for a number of reasons. Schmidt is clearly culpable, but it also seems to be the case that New America was existentially dependent on Google-derived funding.

View on HN

"I bit the hand that fed me. It stopped feeding me. That's how eating out of someone's hand works."

If Google admitted it was their propaganda arm then he would have no right to complain. But since they never did, it behooves Google to fund their outcomes regardless of whether their research benefits/harms Google.

How so? Why would it benefit Google to fund outcomes that harm Google. How can a harm be a benefit?

Why should Google expect funding a non-profit would benefit them? They get the tax-write-off precisely because it benefits The People first and Google second, if at all.

No, you are confusing charity with non-profit. Not every non-profit is a charity. Example: the NFL, a non-profit that serves its taxpaying members. A non-profit is an organization that exist not to generate revenue for its owners, so the owners don't pay tax -- the members or beneficaries do, under regular tax laws. Google pays taxes on its profits generated via the activity of the nonprofit.

Hypothetically, letting some anti-Google rhetoric through might legitimize an otherwise supportive stance.

Say I'm 80% evil and I fund a think tank. The think tank's reputation was 100, and now it's 60 with regard to statements about me because my funding it makes it seem biased. If it published a story that says I'm actually 4% evil, then it gets a reputation boost, I'm not looking as bad as I actually am, and I'm well positioned to let the organization do positive spin when I really need it.

I would say that Google and similar orgs actually usually do this. But Google and Amazon are getting really, really nervous when people talk about monopoly. If anti-trust comes back into vogue, and it could possibly, then it's an existential threat for these empires. They have to carefully manage their carrots and sticks on this issue, and with this one they went with the stick.

Because any short-term harm that might have come from an undesirable policy paper is outweighed by the long-term, and lasting, harm to Google's reputation that is occurring now.

I disagree. Regulators might read the output of a think tank. People like you and me are instead talking about their actions. Seems like a clear win for Google.

The obvious one is that nobody is going to trust the results of that group anymore.

Trust doesn't pay. Funding pays.

Of course one could argue that nobody funds you if nobody trusts you. Interesting to see how this one pans out...

Same reason we pay accountants.

Best comment in the thread. What other outcome do people expect?

This guy is just trying to sell a book.

Best comment in the thread. What other outcome do people expect? This guy is just trying to sell a book.

This was my reaction - It is my understanding that "think tanks" are essentially a nice name for lobbying organizations. A google funded lobbyist being fired for criticizing the company he is paid to lobby for doesn't seem out of the ordinary. Not that i think it's good, but it sounds like a perfectly normal event given the current state of western politics.

Or am i mistaken and think tanks are usually politically neutral pure-research organizations?

Think tanks are rarely neutral; they're generally organized around a set of ideological principles. New America isn't really a pro-Google lobbying organization, except in the sense that by shackling themselves financially to Google, they've rendered themselves incapable of criticizing Google even when Google contravenes their principles.

As a lobbying strategy it would be a little like Google trying to take financial control over Cato or Heritage, not to get those think tanks to spew pro-Google stuff, but to ensure that the primary conservative and libertarian voices in Washington were unable to criticize Google.

(Cato's relationship with the Koch brothers gets similar criticism).

It's definitely fraught! But New America isn't a victim here.

Even if they are politically neutral why would the think tank expect to be funded by the target of their criticism? If they are truly neutral why would they not seek out diverse funding sources?

The idea is that sources are interested in funding BECAUSE they might be criticized. That's when they actually get something out of it. Not a lot of actual altruists in the world, and if they exist, they're funding NGOs that deal with clean water or hunger or something less abstract, at least in the aggregate.

well, they are "supposed" to be non-partisan with policy proposals based on objective research

You can construe it more broadly than that.

"Think tanks" are influence laundering operations.

If someone or some corporation wants something (anything) done, it is more persuasive when the proposed ideas come from an ostensibly neutral organization rather than a transparently self-interested one.

This works well or it wouldn't be done this way. This is also why influence laundering organizations will fight tooth and nail to defend the appearance of funding-independence while knowing quite well that it's a lie: the appearance of neutrality is the product they are selling to patrons, and if they can't sell product they will go out of business.

The interesting generalization of that question is that after > 10 years of an ad fueled boom who else is existentially dependent on Google?

Millions of web based businesses relying on ads served by Google adwords.

Right, and when Google uses its clout in online ads to starve businesses that criticize Google, it'll be a clearer, less fraught story. Here, though, New America is dependent on charity from Google. Google doesn't donate to every think tank in Washington, just the ones it agrees with or has something to gain from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com