Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Schmidt Goes To Washington: A Look Inside Google's Lobbying Behemoth
barlevg (2111272) writes "In May 2012, in the midst of an FTC investigation into Google's search practices, the law school at George Mason University in Northern Virginia hosted a conference attended by congressmen, regulators and staffers. The topic: competition, search and social media. What none of the attendees of the conference knew was that Google was pulling many of the strings behind the event, even going so far as to suggest invited speakers.
This event, as documented in The Washington Post is just a snapshot of the operations of one of the largest and highest spending lobbying entities in DC, a far cry from the one-man shop it started out as nine years ago, from a company "disdainful" of Washington's "pay-to-play" culture."
Oh, Wait....
Just because you don't take an interest in politics, it doesn't mean that politics won't take an interest in you.
Investments in lobbyists always suggest a belief (though they don't tell us whether it's true or false) that the ROI on regulatory meddling is greater than that of other purposes to which the money could be put. What could possibly go wrong?
Indeed, it started as a two men shop at least, and definitely more than 9 years ago.
Not Google. Google's Washington lobbying office.
Washington has set the rules such that companies need to spend vast amounts on lobbying; if they don't, they go out of business, either killed by regulators or torn apart by their competitors using rigged rules in Washington. I'm sure Google is still "disdainful" of how this works, but it doesn't have a choice about whether to participate.
The way to get companies to spend less money in Washington is to take power away from Washington: fewer laws, fewer regulations, lower federal taxes, less federal spending. But, of course, some of the most vocal critics of lobbying promote just the kinds of policies that lead to the necessity for lobbying.problems.
We knew the "Don't Be Evil" motto was an ideal that could not withstand the rigors of the modern international marketplace. But how large a portion of "evil" is Google now comfortable with?
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Pay to play.
Isnt bribery supposed to be illegal in the US?
Why does their government get a "get out of Jail free" card with respect to bribery laws?
No it's not that. The best thing I can see to compare it to is 2:30 into this video: (watch til at least 4:00)
http://www.vice.com/the-vice-g...
Basically you have to pay them money in order to be allowed to do things that are already ethical, perhaps even legal to do. If you already can do these things, then you often have to put up lobbying efforts to make sure that you can continue doing them.
For example, recall how after Google introduced gmail, California senator Liz Figueroa wanted to ban it. In that case, it took some heavy lobbying in order to keep gmail legal.
Personally, it would have pissed me off if they would have banned it; look at how gmail has revolutionized webmail. Before gmail they used to suck horribly, the good ones gave you a whopping 10MB of storage and each action you took required an entire page reload, making them slow as fuck. Yet gmail managed to be faster than native desktop clients in everything it did, including things that native clients were horridly slow at, such as searching.
But you know what? Often the US government (or even some state governments, like California) don't give a shit about whether or not anything is good and useful. The only thing they care about is how well their palms are greased.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
>> What none of the attendees of the conference knew was that Google was pulling many of the strings behind the event
I doubt/hope that "no one knew." Conference agendas, like news stories, should always be read for brand-name frequency. (The brand name that appears most frequently or in the most positive manner is usually the one that hired the PR agency to plant the story in the first place. Same thing goes for a conference agenda.) What's the number one name on this conference agenda? Google.
So...if the academics attending the conference didn't guess it was Google sponsored...then they're probably not as bright as their titles suggest.
No, removing power from the democracy is only empowering the same anti-democratic forces that always seek greater power. They will seek power by any means available to them; take away law and order and they'll become war lords. Anything that limits their means to power is going to have to be more powerful than they are; therefore, it'll become a target for acquisition or undermining. Minimal regulations still require a government powerful enough to enforce them and therefore an equally tempting target for the power mad. You CANT avoid the problem by weakening government; any functioning government will be powerful enough to be the primary target for corrupting forces.
The only solution is to separate powers and limit them to the extent they are stuck in a permanent battle that is evenly matched. This is the basic concept upon which the constitution of the US was created as well as most other constitutions. The flaws and failures come from not properly balancing and separating the powers at play. The obvious flaw in the US system is that it only has 3 branches it limits and it was outside factors that overpowered and functionally destroyed the democracy. Sure, it will be just fine as a republic all the way into oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism and/or dictatorship... but the democracy aspect; the most important part, is dying off.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Eric Schmidt is a regular visitor to the White House thanks to his generous campaign contributions.
I suppose Google also needs to influence Congress though, since Obama isn't taking the lead in much of anything these days.
That's basically right. If you look you can see signs of politicians finding ways to extract money from corporations all over the place.
One famous example is the 'doc fix', which gets 'fixed' every year to make sure the doctors get their money.........as long as the doctor lobby keeps feeding some of it back to the politicians to vote for it. The politicians are like extortionists.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"No, removing power from the democracy ..."
Did you just call the US federal government "the democracy"? Wow. Just wow. Obama's pen would like to have a word with you.
At the local level, I can vote for certain laws in my city. So locally, we have some democracy. There is a reason that the Constitution says all powers other than those listed powers specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.
Consider the history of Microsoft. In the past, Microsoft didn't expend any significant money or effort on lobbying in Washington, D.C. Then during President Clinton's time in office, Microsoft faced serious threats from the Federal government... the worst being that a Federal judge actually ordered that Microsoft be split up. This order was voided by a higher court, so it didn't happen... but you had better believe that Microsoft took it as a hard lesson.
Microsoft now spends a great deal of money and effort on lobbying in D.C. I don't blame them for self-defense via lobbying. (I do blame them for attacking other companies via lobbying, if they do. See below for allegations that they do.)
Google isn't waiting for D.C. to turn on them; they are lobbying to "manage their relationship" with the Federal government. So is Facebook.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52483.html
Here's an article from 2008 about Google learning the importance of lobbying. It includes allegations that Microsoft was using its lobbying infrastructure to try to prevent a deal Google was trying to make with Yahoo.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/google-learns-lessons-in-the-ways-of-washington/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Now I'm picturing Google using its leverage to attack Microsoft, and Eric Schmidt saying "The circle is now complete. In 2008, Google was just a student... now I am the master."
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I don't really think her being a Democrat had anything to do with it, nor is Cato right wing.
I'd also cite this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It was almost entirely Democrats attacking that game, so is that also a right wing campaign to bring down Democrats? Or is it just a bunch of retarded politicians being...retarded? I mean you can see how stupid their reaction is to this game, so why are they reacting this strongly to it? It may or may not be about wanting their palms greased, but nevertheless money must be spent on lobbying efforts just to keep their game on store shelves (alternatively they may face e.g. bankruptcy, loss of jobs, etc.)
Though to be honest I think you're probably just an apologist for Democrats as if they can't do anything wrong.
So in that case I'll just calm your heart with the following words: Go Obama!
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Oh and by the way, I picked that particular one for no reason other than TFA is about Google and only Google, and so I wanted to give an example of what Google has had to deal with. When you're a company as big as Google. spending money on lobbying is very much obligatory. If some smaller outfit did gmail, Liz Figueroa wouldn't have even noticed.
Comcast/Netflix has zero to do with Google. Net neutrality does, but it isn't even remotely specific to them. Gmail is.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Basically you have to pay them money in order to be allowed to do things that are already ethical, perhaps even legal to do. If you already can do these things, then you often have to put up lobbying efforts to make sure that you can continue doing them.
Paying for extortion is unethical and illegal too. Laws punish both the extorter and who omits to denounce.
For example, recall how after Google introduced gmail, California senator Liz Figueroa wanted to ban it.
Presumably she was afraid of the fact that the average Gmail user wouldn''t be aware that Google (and Google's unfaithful employees, and hackers, and the NSA, ...) would be able to read his email, and continue to be able to do so for an unspecified amount of time after that mail was "deleted". Which is what actually happens today, but to a much wider extent, with people using the services of Google (Facebook, Bing, ...) without being aware of the massive and uncontrollable espionage that supports them, because the terms of service are explained in EULAs which are effectively not understandable by those users. Banning Gmail would have been unuseful and unjust, I'd have regulated them to explain this policy to the users by using the same font size that they use when they advertise the size of the storage space they're offering, before the user signs the contract.
In that case, it took some heavy lobbying in order to keep gmail legal.
You mean that Google overrode the people's sovereign will, that they had expressed democratically by electing Liz Figueroa, by corrupting other politicians? If so, it's highly immoral and Google deserves to be punished for this. The government has the monopoly of coercion in modern democracies, and this privilege stems from the fact that it represents the will of the people. Altering this fact is one of the most serious crimes that an entity can stain itself with.
Before gmail they used to suck horribly, the good ones gave you a whopping 10MB of storage
In 2005 my ISP gave me 300 MB of storage which, in a time of 56K modem dialup connections, was plenty. The free offer from the same provider was 100MB, which is still ten times bigger than 10MB.
and each action you took required an entire page reload, making them slow as fuck.
Did your webmail work like that? The one of my ISP looked like MS Outlook and wasn't bad. Why, AJAX was invented by Microsoft for that exact purpose.
nor is Cato right wing
What, seriously? It was founded by Charles Koch, it was originally called "The Charles Koch Foundation." The Koch brothers still own it (mostly, it's a partnership) and fund it. They've been one of the primary sources of climate change denying rhetoric, their president used to be a board member of the Ayn Rand institute... how much further right can you get? They're not religiously affiliated, but they are definitely, unquestionably, right-wing.
::sigh:: However, I can read the title and I know what Night Trap is, and I know that it has nothing to do with Gmail. My issue with your Gmail example is that Figueroa did not "want to ban it." She wanted to pass legislation that would prohibit Google from collecting marketing data by going through their customers' email. Cato turned that into "democratic senator attempting to prohibit innovative new business strategy" (I paraphrase) but at no point did Figueroa try to prevent Google from offering an email service, only from violating peoples' privacy.
I can't watch the Youtube video, I'm on dial-up...
Paying for extortion is unethical and illegal too. Laws punish both the extorter and who omits to denounce.
Tell that to labor unions who demand you pay dues to the union boss or else say goodbye to your job. Why? Because there's a fine line between what some consider extortion and some don't. You can also look at taxation as extortion. Again, depends who you ask.
Presumably she was afraid of the fact that the average Gmail user wouldn''t be aware that Google (and Google's unfaithful employees, and hackers, and the NSA, ...) would be able to read his email, and continue to be able to do so for an unspecified amount of time after that mail was "deleted". Which is what actually happens today, but to a much wider extent, with people using the services of Google (Facebook, Bing, ...) without being aware of the massive and uncontrollable espionage that supports them, because the terms of service are explained in EULAs which are effectively not understandable by those users. Banning Gmail would have been unuseful and unjust, I'd have regulated them to explain this policy to the users by using the same font size that they use when they advertise the size of the storage space they're offering, before the user signs the contract.
Screw that; in order to be fair that would amount to requiring every ad in the world be a full page ad. That's total bullshit. The terms and conditions are fully presented to you, it's up to you to choose not to read them.
In 2005 my ISP gave me 300 MB of storage which, in a time of 56K modem dialup connections, was plenty. The free offer from the same provider was 100MB, which is still ten times bigger than 10MB.
Uh...WHAT? 2005 was a full 7 years after I already had cable. My uncle who lives in a very VERY rural farm area also had DSL back in 2003. Where do you live, Afghanistan?
Did your webmail work like that? The one of my ISP looked like MS Outlook and wasn't bad. Why, AJAX was invented by Microsoft for that exact purpose.
Actually you're quite wrong there. The first public facing implementation of what is today called Ajax was Gmail. The Microsoft variant you refer to is missing the J portion, and used the much maligned ActiveX, and therefore was not Ajax by definition. Besides, when the term was coined, it was referenced specifically to techniques google used. Not only that, but gmail was an internal google service in 2001, and actually began development much earlier.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
So being for gay rights and anti-creationism is right wing?
not religiously affiliated - The religious right may get all the press, but that isn't all there is to being right-wing.
I did read your post about why you picked Gmail - what I'm saying is that your example is not only politically charged, it isn't even an example of the topic at hand. Google did not need to lobby in order to offer Gmail, Google only needed to lobby in order to read peoples' email. This was new at the time, now everyone does it and few of those have privacy policies that are even as good as Google's.
Merely referencing a bad example wouldn't upset me like this one, but you're using the invasion of privacy as a justification for lobbying. "Oh no," you're saying, "if we didn't have this corrupting influence then no one but us would be reading our personal correspondence. We can't have that, what a horrible person that Liz Figueroa was."
However, I can read the title and I know what Night Trap is, and I know that it has nothing to do with Gmail.
Which is why it was given as an example. It's a totally different example of the principle which doesn't involve Gmail at all by design.
My issue with your Gmail example is that Figueroa did not "want to ban it."
Destroying the business model is a classic political means for banning something. It's done all the time with adult video and sex product stores. The local government can zone the area so that the only place you can build such a store is well out of the way. As a result you get a lot less customers because your business is hard to get to. If that difference between a convenient and inconvenient location is enough to make the business unprofitable, then you destroyed the business's model.
Well, I see you haven't established that the Koch brothers are actually right wing.
All the Koch brothers care about is making themselves richer and paying less in tax. They mostly donate case to conservative campaigns and think tanks, that counts as right wing in my book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Also note this bit:
"Charles also organizes twice yearly meetings[20] with Republican donors.[16]"
I would have linked directly the the references above but they are pay walled.
I could not give a crap about the Gmail example, but the fact is that "libertarianism" in the US is just a front, funded by the likes of the Koch brothers (and others) and designed to facilitate a tax regime friendly to the richest 1% of the population. If that does not count as right wing I do not know what does.
I dont read
Everything is ok if Google does it, right?
not religiously affiliated - The religious right may get all the press, but that isn't all there is to being right-wing.
Ugh...I don't think I'm getting my point across correctly. This is pretty much the opposite of a "why, no true scottsman would..." argument. You're just picking things you want to identify as right wing, and if that person meets any of those you just dismiss them entirely.
Why not just look at each individual viewpoint based on its own merits/demerits?
I'm pro second amendment, free market capitalist, and anti affirmative action. Does that make me right wing?
I'm for the legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, and I'm atheist. Does that make me left wing?
Here's a better idea: Let's talk about these issues individually rather than say left or right.
you're using the invasion of privacy as a justification for lobbying.
No, I'm justifying lobbying based on a lot of things. People react so stupidly to perceived problems that they theorize will happen, and it often costs money (not bribe money, but lobbying takes time, and you know how time relates to money.)
It isn't just politicians; it's voters as well. For example, I'm pro immigration, but against illegal immigration. I suggested ending birthright citizenship in an old slashdot post. Somebody replies to me saying "oh but that would cause second class citizens and it would be so awful." Really? Well, in numerous countries in Europe they don't have birthright citizenship, yet they don't have those perceived problems. I make similar arguments in favor of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and others, where other countries have legalized them to REDUCE violent crime, (German red light districts and the autobahn aren't causing social problems there) yet politicians and indeed many voters have this fear about them anyways (and no, it's not just the religious ones, the secular ones fear it as well, but for different reasons.)
Liz Figueroa was overreacting to Google's advertising model. This reaction came mainly out of misunderstanding what google is doing (they actually had people making claims in the popular media about things they were doing that they weren't actually doing) in addition to having her own vision about how the world "ought to be" and wanting to force it on everybody else. Also you seem to have a misunderstanding of your own - companies like them have ALWAYS had the ability to look over your emails if they wanted to - there never has been anything stopping them from doing so. Microsoft demonstrated that recently. Google just has a machine look for words and show ads -- your emails are safe from Mrs. Kravits.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
I'm pro second amendment, free market capitalist, and anti affirmative action. Does that make me right wing?
I'm for the legalization of drugs, gambling, prostitution, and I'm atheist. Does that make me left wing?
Translation:
I'm a selfish white guy from an upper class background who has plenty of money but really wants more. I don't care who gets hurt and I disregard any harm I cause to others as lack of personal responsibility. I also think I'm educated much better then I would be if I had formal education.
that counts as right wing in my book
So what? Why should I care about your "book"?
I could not give a crap about the Gmail example, but the fact is that "libertarianism" in the US is just a front, funded by the likes of the Koch brothers (and others) and designed to facilitate a tax regime friendly to the richest 1% of the population. If that does not count as right wing I do not know what does.
You're right. You don't know what right wing is. Or facts for that matter. Libertarianism has been kicking around in the US since at least the end of the Second World War, long before the Koch brothers might have been a factor. It's never been a front for the rich. The ideology was developed long ago. Your "fact" is fraudulent.
Second, right wing vaguely means conservative/reactionary and someone who values social stability well over change. Libertarians are aggressive liberal on issues of personal freedom and economics even if that threatens social stability and other conservative notions. In those areas, they tend to be to the left of most leftists (aside from anarchists).
It's never been a front for the rich.
Well the like of the Koch brothers have made it so now, but you are obviously too indoctrinated by the US media to realise this. Never mind.
I dont read
So how does that description not fit the Koch brothers?
If they really support libertarianism, then that's one way the description doesn't fit.
Koch is seen as the guy promoting keeping society the way it is (or was) against Soros' attempt to disturb stability through more change.
"Seen" is not the same as "is".
Well the like of the Koch brothers have made it so now
Nonsense.
but you are obviously too indoctrinated by the US media to realise this.
Looks who's talking. Have some billionaires spend a little money and suddenly they own a whole political movement. Does that mean that Soros owns what's usually considered as the left by now?
Do you know for sure that condition is true? How? Again, I'm honestly asking you.
First, their efforts, such as supporting libertarian think tanks, tea party candidates, or opposing AGW efforts are much more aggressive and costly than merely exploiting tax loop holes, moving wealth into low tax areas, or bribing a few congresscritters.
Some of these efforts are clearly reactionary though not necessarily right wing. Resisting climate change mitigation can be done on other grounds than merely right wing ones. And while restoring the rule of law, individual freedom, and financial responsibility sounds reactionary and conservative, it remains one of the more out there aspects of liberalism.
People don't really want to live in a budget at the national level, respect laws (particularly legal restrictions on law and regulation) that go against their inclinations or ideologies, or observe the freedom of other people to do things with which they disagree. Those sorts of inclinations are ancient. The division of politics into left and right while it may have made lots of sense in past centuries and still does to some limited degree today, just isn't aging well.