Slashdot Mirror


Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A researcher at a high-profile Washington, D.C.-think tank, which receives funding from Google, was pushed out after criticizing the company. In June, Barry Lynn, who was a scholar at New America, posted a statement praising the European Union's record $2.7 billion fine against the company. Lynn ran a team, Open Markets, that researched competition policy and was increasingly critical of giants like Google and Amazon. Google executive chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt, criticized Lynn's statement to the think tank's CEO, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to The New York Times. Schmidt chaired New America until 2016. The think tank has received $21 million from Google and Schmidt's family's foundation since its founding in 1999. The statement reportedly disappeared from the think tank website but returned hours later. According to the Times, word of Schmidt's displeasure spread across the think tank. Slaughter fired Lynn days later, saying in an email obtained by the Times that "the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways." Slaughter told Lynn in an email that his firing was "in no way based on the content of your work," but said he was "imperiling the institution as a whole." Lynn told the Times he believed his dismissal was because he criticized Google.

122 comments

  1. New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google: let's be evil.

    1. Re:New Slogan by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      "Do no good." would be a fit too.

    2. Re:New Slogan by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Or Google: 'redefining evil, because we can'.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:New Slogan by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is firing people who aren't meeting expectations "evil"? You can't just take this guy's word -- every blowhard thinks he was fired for some nefarious reason, but usually it's because they're just horrible people to deal with and everybody in the office hates them.

    4. Re:New Slogan by spun · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate capitalism and the free market?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:New Slogan by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      People with the money get to decide what's evil and good.

    6. Re:New Slogan by ewibble · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok I don't know why he was fired, neither do you, but the appearance of bias is almost as bad as actual bias. It takes away legitimacy from the think tank. It is like google is above firing people they disagree with (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo). A person should have the right to express their opinion weather or not you agree with it. If your think beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny then they can't be very sound beliefs.

      If you are going to have a think tank, the need have opposing opinions, otherwise you come up with a predetermined solution. I you set up group to decide what color you should paint a wall, and your criteria for picking them is they want the wall to be pink, guess what you are going to get a pink wall.

      If google has the power to push out people it disagrees with then you don't have a think tank, you have a lobbing tool for google. In reality that is what a "think tank" is, but it shouldn't be.

    7. Re:New Slogan by scatbomb · · Score: 2

      Snarkiness aside, this is not capitalism nor is it free market. This (now commonplace activity) is conspiracy of a powerful corporation to influence the government in order to tilt the playing ground in their favor against consumers and against their competition. It's tantamount to bribery and the politicians and CEOs behind it ought to be placed before a court of law. We haven't had a free market for as long as I've been alive, and probably well before that.

    8. Re:New Slogan by spun · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? Who is bribing whom? What activity are you even talking about? I thought we were talking about a guy getting fired for not doing his job.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:New Slogan by spun · · Score: 2

      Are you twelve? Talk like an adult if you expect a response. Kids these days need a taste of the belt, damn liberals ruined today's youth with their permissive attitude.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re: New Slogan by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Google sure does love censorship.

      Time to dust off the old antitrust laws. Break up Google!

    11. Re:New Slogan by lance_of_the_apes · · Score: 1

      Is that you, GlaDOS?

    12. Re:New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical, Kevin Ryan was fired for telling the truth about 9-11. ae911truth dot org

    13. Re:New Slogan by scatbomb · · Score: 2

      Are you playing ignorant or do you really not know what a think tank is? Whatever, I'll play along... think tanks are organizations which aim to lobby the government in and influence public opinion, or at least manufacture consent/approval by giving something in exchange for favorable news coverage.

    14. Re:New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If you are going to have a think tank, the need have opposing opinions, otherwise you come up with a predetermined solution."

      I don't think you understand what think tanks are for. They are for exactly this. They are to provide a facade of credibility to a body that is pushing an agenda of one sort or another.

    15. Re:New Slogan by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      RTFA:

      "And after this article was published online Wednesday morning, Ms. Slaughter wrote on Twitter that it was “false.” She failed to cite any errors on Twitter or in a statement issued hours later through New America. Ms. Mariani did not respond to requests to identify errors or to make Ms. Slaughter available for an interview."

    16. Re:New Slogan by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Snarkiness aside, this is not capitalism

      Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which capital controls the means of production. How is this not capitalism?

      nor is it free market.

      Google wasn't getting what it was paying for, so they decided that he shouldn't get paid any more. How is this not the free market?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:New Slogan by retchdog · · Score: 1

      yes, and they fired a naive fool who apparently didn't realize that this was his job as a think tank worker (think-tanker?).

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    18. Re:New Slogan by retchdog · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which capital controls the means of production. How is this not capitalism?

      i'm pretty sure that's wrong, because it didn't include "Jesus" or "freedom". also your phrasing practically invites criticism, which is itself tantamount to being a Marxist, and since you're a communist you must be wrong. qed.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    19. Re:New Slogan by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      this was his job as a think tank worker (think-tanker?).

      Tank thinker, of course.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't; Be Evil!

    21. Re:New Slogan by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Look, everybody can take their shot at influencing public opinion, or the opinions of government officials. Think tanks do this by coming up with arguments. This is fine. Bribery is when an official gets something he or she values in exchange for influence or doing a particular thing, not when an official gets convinced that something is the right thing to do, or that the official's constituents want it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re: New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those things by themselves are relatively harmless. Fairly confident my own angst originates from lots of personal pain, a lot of which I'm certain would never have been, if we were in a world where the bottom line is our global minimum rather than the local maximum. Still on the fence about Google, just thought a new slogan post would get the party started, one which in part helps formulate some semblance of an informed opinion. I like to think of it as Tactical Trolling.

    23. Re:New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The slope is slippy ... bitch.

    24. Re:New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it leads to greed and superficiality. It's a primitive social construct that has had its day.

    25. Re: New Slogan by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      There is not that much really there to break up. Google with the help of the deep state and scammy bankers, just used their overprice share float to buy up other actually performing companies, in order to take a more dominant and corruptive position in line with their deep state finnacial origins. You start to think how best to avoid dealing with google and remeber that I don't spend one cent with google. A lot of advertisers are simply sucked in.

      For example, when looking for a specific company and the search comes up, often google shows you the ad first for the company you are looking for, which is not even in the first few real search returns but further down the list but that ad is number one on the page. So if I click the ad, the schmucks pay google price for free search result that was buried further down the page. Sometimes I click the ads to waste the companies money and sometimes I look further down the page for the free search result. Funny that though, that companies ad is number one on search but the actual company search result is not the first one but buried further down the page, hmm, I'll bet you can program a search engine to achieve that outcome, to make sure the pay for click is actually paid for and I have noticed it happens quite a lot, like it has specifically been programmed that way. Google is shit, run by the bug shit at Alphabet and certainly not to be trusted. It seems very much like a retread of the asta la vista story is on the cards.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    26. Re:New Slogan by Xest · · Score: 1

      Google has a history of this - they didn't like being held to EU data protection laws, so they created a think tank and spent millions sending it around Europe, except all questions to the think tank were pre-screened and you could be turned away if you asked a question they didn't like.

      Think tanks as a lobbying tool is already a well established part of Google's modus operandi, thus all think tanks Google produce are effectively meaningless for the reasons you cite - they simply can't be trusted to act as a think tank.

    27. Re:New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow old man Schmidt is really turning into a grumpy ignorant man. I guess there are somethings cialis can't fix. Someone needs to put in out of the world's collective misery.

    28. Re:New Slogan by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Do you want some cake?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    29. Re:New Slogan by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Yep, if you think that companies give these "think tanks" money to come up with ideas and run with them you are crazy. They give money to these to push an agenda. The "news" of this article is that one of the employees of this propaganda machine didn't understand what his job really was.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    30. Re: New Slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lmftfy Google Critic Ousted From Group Think Tank . You know I wish out of all companies Google would be more of a role model for altruism. There is a benefit of being able to criticize yourself and see past your own asshole. It's continuing to learn new thinga and continually not settling for "this is the best I can do". Do better or GTFO Google.

    31. Re:New Slogan by lance_of_the_apes · · Score: 1

      Only if it's black forest.

    32. Re:New Slogan by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      You do know the cake is a lie?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    33. Re:New Slogan by lance_of_the_apes · · Score: 1

      But...but...I saw a picture. And I was told it's delicious and moist. /sob

  2. Nothing new here by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    "the time has come for Open Markets and (New) America to part ways."

    Apart from the spelling error (either America or "the New World"), I'd mod this a slow news day...

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Nothing new here by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Corporation silencing people, yup nothing new here....

  3. Play stupid games, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Win stupid prizes.

  4. Understandable by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The so called think-tanks are institutions for lobbyism and public opinion manipulation in favor of the funding company. In other word a propaganda machines. Lynn didn't do what he iwas payed to do and got fired. Stop pretending like his job was to be objective in the first place.

    --
    sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    1. Re:Understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly correct. They are just fake news generators for their funders.

    2. Re:Understandable by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      Stop pretending you're not a douche bag....

    3. Re:Understandable by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      That's not really the story here, the story is that Google has clearly gone evil. Seeing that they were founded on the slogan "Don't be evil" it's a pretty big change. Firing that engineer for saying men and women are different was when they crossed the moral event horizon, and now their face-heel turn appears complete.

      Now all Google needs is a red lightsaber and a cool makeover with some spikes or breathing machine. It's so sad. I loved Google for a long time. They really were one of the good guys, in an IT field with monsters like Microsoft and Oracle stalking defenseless prey. Their fall to evil is a tragedy for us all.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * paid

      "payed" doesn't make any sort of sense.

  5. Not obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is It not obvious that if you attack your primary sponsor, you're going to run out of money fast? I mean, the dog is smart enough to not bite me.

    1. Re:Not obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dog also has no idea you're stealing from him and the whole pack.

    2. Re:Not obvious? by spun · · Score: 2

      That sounds like commie talk, mister. The free market has spoken, amen, praise be to The Invisible Hand.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re: Not obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ain't no damn commie! Hell, we ain't never needed them scabs. It's a sad state of affairs when a feller has to lend one of his own hands to affix that invisible arm. Save yer praises fer my up and coming supreme robot overlords.

  6. Good marketing by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    I think it's pretty good marketing for the New America Foundation. This is a fairly inexpensive way to tell the whole world that they'll think whatever they're paid to.

    1. Re:Good marketing by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Calling it a "think tank" indicates that pretty effectively all by itself.

  7. WRONG! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Informative

    Google executive chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt, criticized Lynn's statement to the think tank's CEO, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to The New York Times.

    A comma is NOT necessary just because the subject consists of more than one word. Fuckheads.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:WRONG! by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

      A comma is NOT necessary just because the subject consists of more than one word. Fuckheads.

      I, disagree.

    2. Re:WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is capitalizing the word "not" mid sentence. It was clearly the focus of your comment.

    3. Re:WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The missed the first comma. Should be "Google executive chairman and former CEO, Eric Schmidt, criticized..." (Although, I think with a public figure like this, you can use the comma or not (without the comma, "Google executive chairman and former CEO" would be his title (a little silly, but valid), rather than an identifier-name (as its called in that NYT article, but I thought there was a better word for that).

    4. Re:WRONG! by halivar · · Score: 1

      The original sentence flows more smoothly without any commas at all while still being unambiguous in structure. This is one of those cases where less punctuation is more. (Disclaimer: I, too, tend to overuse commas, as my brain thinks, incorrectly, that the mental pause it elicits conveys gravitas.)

    5. Re:WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of those cases where less punctuation is more

      Is more what?

    6. Re:WRONG! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      It should have both or neither.

      The woman over there with the gold hat is Queen Elizabeth. OK

      The woman over there, with the gold hat, is Queen Elizabeth. OK

      The woman over there, with the gold hat is Queen Elizabeth. No!

      The woman, over there with the gold hat is Queen Elizabeth. Even Joe_Dragon wouldn't do this!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the words of a five-year-old I happen to know: "Hello, disagree. I'm Scott."

  8. Well, duh by JohnFen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    1. Re:Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again the EU is way ahead: citizens pay for state media and the government decides the tune.

    2. Re:Well, duh by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Pipers gotta pipe.

      Think Tanks gotta psychically power their overland armored vehicles to shoot mind bullets at the enemy.

      That costs dosh.

    3. Re:Well, duh by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      Once again the EU is way ahead: citizens pay for state media and the government decides the tune.

      That really wouldn't make me feel a whole lot better. The media should be independent.

    4. Re: Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soros, merkel and their greater Family rule Europe.

    5. Re:Well, duh by Megol · · Score: 1

      What? In all cases I know of in the EU (and I guess you really mean Europe but didn't know enough to name the entity correctly) where there are "state media" it is independent. A government can't directly influence that media which works under a set of rules which in most cases are fixed in law - so changing the rules means changing the law. That's hard to do as most European countries aren't two-party states like some other places and getting enough support for changing something almost considered sacred is very slim.

      TL;DR "state media" essentially means there is a media entity that have been given the right to get money via a kind of taxation and have rules to enforce political independence and other independence in their reporting. The government have nothing to say about that other than via law changes.

    6. Re: Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this just Google being independent?

    7. Re:Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of state-funded media is that they are independent. Otherwise there would be no point in having them.

  9. Free speech with consequences by no-body · · Score: 1

    Pretty mild to get just dumped, if it is just that. No other consequences?
    Looking at turkey, someone "thinks" it would be good to get rid of someone, just call him/her a terrorist.
    Brave new world....

    1. Re:Free speech with consequences by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Basically, fuck Google. Fuck Eric Schmidt.

      Google is dangerous, too big, too influential, too invasively creepy.

      In some dystopian future, people will think back on events like this and say "Why didn't we see all of this coming?" Right before the telescreen interrupts with the tune calling for morning calisthenics.

    2. Re:Free speech with consequences by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Right before the telescreen interrupts with the tune calling for morning calisthenics.

      Haven't you been following tech news?

      They're working on a direct brain-computer interface.

      You won't have a choice. Your body will simply do calisthenics as the exercise/health program running on your dry/wetware processor schedules & initiates.

      You'll simply be a passenger. And you'll pay for the privilege. Automatically. Without your consent.

      Because that's what is best for society/the collective as determined by your betters.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  10. Let me get this straight by teknosapien · · Score: 2

    You want the company that provides funding to part ways with your organization?
    At what point when funding goes away does the org cease to exist?

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  11. Maybe.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop pretending like his job was to be objective in the first place.

    Maybe he was there or thought he was there to have a critical voice to make their "findings" look legitimate. You know, because:

    The so called think-tanks are institutions for lobbyism and public opinion manipulation in favor of the funding company. In other word a propaganda machines.

  12. I'm confused... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    isn't this how markets work?

    I feel like there is a distinct failure to recognize the fundamental problems behind the theory of the free market.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:I'm confused... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, pretty much.

      Thinks tanks are paid to think along certain lines. Don't worry, they'll find someone else to think the right thoughts.

    2. Re:I'm confused... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      You certainly are confused but then you're trolling for Google, so fuck off...

    3. Re:I'm confused... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      No, I do not support or condone the actions of Google. However, I find it funny that so many proponents of the free market are incapable of even acknowledging that there are serious flaws in the theory.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:I'm confused... by Whibla · · Score: 1

      While I'm not a proponent of the free market, if anything quite the reverse - free market capitalism as it is currently being practiced particularly:

      I find it funny that so many proponents of the free market are incapable of even acknowledging that there are serious flaws in the theory.

      I'm not sure there are any flaws in the theory. It's simply that reality doesn't match the theory! ;-)

  13. Will you bite the hand that feeds you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will you stay down on your knees?

  14. Don't bite the hand by wnfJv8eC · · Score: 1

    that feeds you. A very old saying. You work at a google sponsored lobby firm, remember who pays your check.

    1. Re:Don't bite the hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a dog, or are you a man?

    2. Re: Don't bite the hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republic of Uniform slaves ?

  15. So, Google IS Evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is the result of manipulation from Google, then Google is Evil. Along with all of their products - like Android.

    1. Re:So, Google IS Evil. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Inanimate objects and software can't be good or evil -- but they can be security threats. Android itself is no more or less of a security threat than any other OS -- but the Google apps that usually ship with Android are very definitely a such a threat.

      Fortunately, you can have Android without Google. Unfortunately, you have to be either tech-savvy or wealthy to accomplish that.

    2. Re:So, Google IS Evil. by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Inanimate objects and software can't be good or evil

      Land mines and malware would like a word with you.

    3. Re:So, Google IS Evil. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Both are extreme security threats.

      We're delving into philosophy now, but in my mind "good" and "evil" are matters of intent. Non-sentient things have no intent, and so can't be either. However, they can be used to further good or evil ends.

  16. Credibility by speedplane · · Score: 1

    The only way the people at this think tank could retain even an iota of credibility is to disband the think tank and start afresh, or to come clean and admit they advance the causes of their corporate donors. They've done neither and really shot themselves in the foot.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:Credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The purpose of think tanks is twofold:

      Lobby for whatever cause they're paid to lobby for, and

      Provide jobs for people who were put out of work by the most recent election and are waiting for the next election to get another appointment

    2. Re:Credibility by speedplane · · Score: 1

      The purpose of think tanks is twofold:

      Lobby for whatever cause they're paid to lobby for, and

      Provide jobs for people who were put out of work by the most recent election and are waiting for the next election to get another appointment

      I don't think that's entirely untrue, but it's also extremely cynical. Most people are not born corrupt, and many go into these think tanks with the idea of promoting good solutions to difficult problems. Not everyone is evil.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  17. Yes, let's all agree how Google is right by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 4, Informative

    Soon it will be all you can do anyway.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    1. Re:Yes, let's all agree how Google is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon it will be all you can do anyway.

      No! ... NOOOOooooo!

      Booooo!

      Well, my 2 minutes of hate is up. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to war with East Asia.

  18. What is a "Think Tank"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    It is no surprise that most Think Tanks are located in D.C. They are lobbying organizations. Such BS.

    1. Re:What is a "Think Tank"? by swb · · Score: 1

      I think they're less lobbying organizations than they are intellectual justification factories.

      Pick a position on an issue, threw a few million dollars at a bunch of academics, and you can probably wind up with enough "evidence" to advocate for the truth and accuracy of your position and bury your opponents.

      I think at one time, think tanks actually did something useful -- academic studies of issues ignored by academics, or multidisciplinary studies of issues that weren't well explained by any single discipline -- and when the person who wanted the study didn't have a stake in the results, they just wanted the information.

      I think they got into trouble later on when they started taking work for hire and it became understood that their clients were buying *justification* and not truth.

      Nowadays, it just seems like an ideological racket designed to manufacture intellectual edifices in order to win debates or sway public opinion.

    2. Re:What is a "Think Tank"? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In Douglas Adam's "Long Dark Teatime of the Soul", one character had written a decision support system, which would take a decision and support it. Unfortunately, the US Armed Forces made it impossible for him to sell it to the public.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:What is a "Think Tank"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think they're less lobbying organizations than they are intellectual justification factories.

      Lobbying is half constructing a halfway believable argument, and half applying the right amount of grease to all the right places to keep the machine running the way you want it to. Think tanks are half of that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. Do No Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it seems that "Do No Evil" doesn't quite have a home in Google!

  20. "Think Tank" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Think tanks" were supposed to be who you called to avoid things like groupthink and confirmation bias within your own organization.

    Now they are who you call when you want to be told what you want to hear.

    No heterogeneity of thought is allowed.

  21. Google is definitely evil now by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    So this was not actually a think tank, this organization was a tax deductible way for Google to shill and lobby for it's policies covertly. This kind of conflict of interest with charitable donations should be scrutinized hard by the federal government. It is likely that Google owes tax on every dollar sent to this institution since they are clearly a Google proxy, and not an independent entity. The think tank should probably also lose any tax benefits it has and be re-categorized as a lobbying organization.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Google is definitely evil now by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So this was not actually a think tank, this organization was a tax deductible way for Google to shill and lobby for it's policies covertly.

      Not that I'm happy to see Google doing these things, but please point to the think tank that isn't precisely that for someone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Google is definitely evil now by Cederic · · Score: 1

      So lets apply the same investigation on others too. This doesn't need to be a partisan activity, it's a way to assure compliance with tax laws.

    3. Re:Google is definitely evil now by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      I am all for a case by case review of these think tanks. From what I have seen, there are a fair number of such on both the political right and left who are genuinely focused on issues and spreading their ideas on the cable shows. Most of the grass roots Tea Party 501C organizations that Obama's IRS fraudulently sabotaged were in the same category and were genuinely focused on policy, voter education and turnout.

      I don't know what the spread is between legit think tanks and lobbying proxies, but there are legitimate organizations.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  22. Yet Another Good Thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome! Let's have official Google Asshole Shawn Willden tell us what a Good Thing this is!!

  23. "New America" is the name of the think-tank by XXongo · · Score: 1

    "the time has come for Open Markets and (New) America to part ways."

    Apart from the spelling error (either America or "the New World")...

    "New America" is the name of the think-tank.

    1. Re:"New America" is the name of the think-tank by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You know, that's very valuable information. Now I know which one to expect to be Google-influenced.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  24. rofl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't bite the feeding hand... (at least till you find a new hand lol...)

  25. Re:It's A Lot Like Climate Science by fireylord · · Score: 1

    care to back up your assertions with evidence mister AC?

  26. firing of Lynn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good for Schmidt. The EU decision is classic straightforward protectionist bullshit.

    1. Re:firing of Lynn by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Schmidt is that you. Oh well tough shit for you.

    2. Re:firing of Lynn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU decision is classic straightforward protectionist bullshit.

      That word doesn't mean what you think it does.

  27. There is a better name by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Think-Alike Tank.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. Re:Nazi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because everyone that disagrees with you is a Nazi.

    You really need to just kill yourself.

  29. Echo Chamber by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Google isn't interested in diversity of opinion. Group think is what they're all about now.

  30. Kinda obvious isn't it? by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    For those who don't know - think tanks are basically evangelizers, they are hired and paid for government lobbying. Specially if they are located in DC.
    It's like having your high level 3rd party marketing team making public statements and celebrating that your company was successfully sued. In their official page, no less.
    This isn't even backroom talk, it's basically doing the opposite you were hired for.

  31. Old news? by jargonburn · · Score: 1

    "the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,”

    Really! And only so recently?! I would swear that the "New" America parted ways with "Open Markets" some time back.

  32. Guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess Barry didn't give leadership heads up before publishing.

    His critical may have been ok or needed some subtle modification, leadership don't like to be caught with their pants down

  33. Re: It's A Lot Like Climate Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mann's faked up hockey stick graph.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. never seen it comming by hagnat · · Score: 1

    Guy writes critical article of the main investor of the company, gets fired. News at 11.

    --
    "life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
  36. open markets by lbb19 · · Score: 1

    Careful what we are saying. Heads keeps rolling everywhere.