Did Google.org Steal the Christmas Spirit? (theregister.co.uk)

Google.org gives nonprofits roughly $100 million each year. But now the Register argues that festive giving "has become a 'Googlicious' sales push." Among other things, The Register criticizes the $30 million in grant funding that Google.org gave this Christmas "to nonprofits to bring phones, tablets, hardware and training to communities that can benefit from them most," some of which utilized the crowdfunding site DonorsChoose (which tacks a fee of at least $30 fee onto every donation). "The most critical learning resources that teachers need are often exercise books, pen and paper, but incentives built into the process steer educators to request and receive Google hardware, rather than humble classroom staples," claims the Register. theodp writes: [O]ne can't help but wonder if Google.org's decision to award $18,130 to teachers at Timberland Charter Academy for Chromebooks to help make students "become 'Google'licious" while leaving another humbler $399 request from a teacher at the same school for basic school supplies -- pencils, paper, erasers, etc. -- unfunded is more aligned with Google's interests than the Christmas spirit. Google, The Register reminds readers, lowered its 2015 tax bill by $3.6 billion using the old Dutch Sandwich loophole trick, according to new regulatory filings in the Netherlands.
The article even criticizes the "Santa's Village" site at Google.org, which includes games like Code Boogie, plus a game about airport security at the North Pole. Their complaint is its "Season of Giving" game, which invites children to print out and color ornaments that represent charities -- including DonorsChoose.org. The article ends by quoting Slashdot reader theodp ("who documents the influence of Big Tech in education") as saying "Nothing says Christmas fun more than making ornaments to celebrate Google's pet causes..."

Comments

This hasn't anything to do with Christmas

[rsilvergun]

it's just how these sorts of things work. Corporations give to charity for three reasons: Tax write offs, Marketing/Publicity and to advance their long term agendas. This is why we shouldn't rely on charity to maintain the public good.

"Charity"

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't charities... Just corporate tax breaks that helps expand the Google brand.
Just another reason to block all google domains on my home network.

Today's Christmas *is* corporate bullshit

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The Christmas we knows today - with the garish fat man dressed in red and gaudy lights that waste gigawatt hours of energy for nothing every year - is a pure invention of the Coca Cola company, designed solely to sell Coca Cola products. Also, the contemporary Christmas "spirit", based on ultra-consumerism and overeating, that start at least a month before the actual fucking Christmas Eve, is nothing but a massive effort by companies to brainwash people into buying tons of shit without realizing they're being manipulated into consuming. When was the last time Christmas was a strictly christian celebration, with Christians going to church to pray for a whole day and night, while the Jews, Muslims and all the others went about their business as usual on December 24?

So no, Google didn't steal the Christmas spirit: they *are* the Christmas spirit. They're pushing their products, like everybody else

Re:Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article, it points out that a lot of the charity money buys Google. Getting tax breaks to get people to buy your stuff is good business for somebody...

This is 100% right, but you aren't actually getting the scale of it. Since I don't fully know the economics of Google's giving I'll explain in terms of Microsoft.

Microsoft gives to charity, sometimes through the Gates foundation. Very often directly to educational groups. When they do this, what they give are either their own products or money which goes to buy their own products. Let's say that Windows costs $1000. They give a copy of Windows and tax deduct $1000. Now, their tax rate for the deduction will be around 30% (yes, I know that Microsoft doesn't normally pay 30%, however they don't deduct where they do their main payments, they do it where they get the maximum deduction). So basically they get back $300. However, the cost of that Windows install isn't actually $1000. In they old days it would be around $1, for them sending out a CD. Nowadays, it's around $0.01 for the marginal cost of the license management of one additional license on their side. So basically Microsoft gets $299.99 profit from a $1000 donation.

But hold on. If Microsoft didn't donate what would happen? Well, actually the school would buy from Apple. This would mean a class of students would come out trained in Apple products and many of them would demand those whey the came into the working environment. So actually, you probably have to count another $500 of marketing cost that Microsoft avoids. So, a Microsoft "donation" of $1000 actually ends up as a $800 benefit to Microsoft's bottom line.

I suspect that the people working for Google are not stupid and their economics are similar to Microsoft's, possibly better.