Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant
Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech
Giant
By KENNETH P. VOGEL AUG. 30, 2017
WASHINGTON — In the hours after European antitrust
regulators levied a record $2.7 billion fine against Google in late June, an
influential Washington think tank learned what can happen when a tech giant
that shapes public policy debates with its enormous wealth is criticized.
The New America Foundation has received more than $21
million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and
his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. That money
helped to establish New America as an elite voice in policy debates on the
American left.
But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a
statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty
against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had chaired New America until 2016,
communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president,
Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar.
The statement disappeared from New America’s website,
only to be reposted without explanation a few hours later. But word of Mr.
Schmidt’s displeasure rippled through New America, which employs more than 200
people, including dozens of researchers, writers and scholars, most of whom
work in sleek Washington offices where the main conference room is called the
“Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab.” The episode left some people concerned that Google intended
to discontinue funding, while others worried whether the think tank could truly
be independent if it had to worry about offending its donors.
Those worries seemed to be substantiated a couple of days
later, when Ms. Slaughter summoned the scholar who wrote the critical
statement, Barry Lynn, to her office. He ran a New America initiative called
Open Markets that has led a growing chorus of liberal criticism of the market
dominance of telecom and tech giants, including Google, which is now part of a
larger corporate entity known as Alphabet, for which Mr. Schmidt serves as
executive chairman.
Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that “the time has come for
Open Markets and New America to part ways,” according to an email from Ms.
Slaughter to Mr. Lynn. The email suggested that the entire Open Markets team —
nearly 10 full-time employees and unpaid fellows — would be exiled from New
America.
While she asserted in the email, which was reviewed by
The New York Times, that the decision was “in no way based on the content of
your work,” Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of “imperiling the institution as a
whole.”
Mr. Lynn, in an interview, charged that Ms. Slaughter
caved to pressure from Mr. Schmidt and Google, and, in so doing, set the
desires of a donor over the think tank’s intellectual integrity.
“Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around
Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings,” Mr. Lynn said. “People
are so afraid of Google now.”
Google rejected any suggestion that it played a role in
New America’s split with Open Markets. Riva Sciuto, a Google spokeswoman,
pointed out that the company supports a wide range of think tanks and other
nonprofits focused on information access and internet regulation. “We don’t
agree with every group 100 percent of the time, and while we sometimes
respectfully disagree, we respect each group’s independence, personnel
decisions and policy perspectives.”
New America’s executive vice president, Tyra Mariani,
said it was “a mutual decision for Barry to spin out his Open Markets program,”
and that the move was not in any way influenced by Google or Mr. Schmidt.
“New America financial supporters have no influence or
control over the research design, methodology, analysis or findings of New
America research projects, nor do they have influence or control over the
content of educational programs and communications efforts,” Ms. Mariani said.
She added that Mr. Lynn’s statement praising the European Union’s sanctions
against Google had been temporarily removed from New America’s website because
of “an unintentional internal issue” unrelated to Google or Mr. Schmidt.
Ms. Mariani and Ms. Sciuto said Google is continuing to
fund New America.
It is difficult to overstate Mr. Lynn’s influence in
raising concerns about the market dominance of Google, as well as of other tech
companies such as Amazon and Facebook. His Open Markets initiative organized a
2016 conference at which a range of influential figures — including Senator
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — warned of damaging effects from market
consolidation in tech.
In the run-up to that conference, Ms. Slaughter and New
America’s lead fund-raiser in emails to Mr. Lynn indicated that Google was
concerned that its positions were not going to be represented, and that it was
not given advanced notice of the event.
“We are in the process of trying to expand our
relationship with Google on some absolutely key points,” Ms. Slaughter wrote in
an email to Mr. Lynn, urging him to “just THINK about how you are imperiling
funding for others.”
Mr. Lynn is now in the process of starting a stand-alone
nonprofit with the same team to continue Open Markets’s work. The new group,
which does not yet have a name, has funding commitments, though clearly is not
expecting any money from Google. It has launched a website called Citizens
Against Monopoly that accuses Google of “trying to censor journalists and
researchers who fight dangerous monopolies.” The website vows, “We are going to
make sure Google doesn’t get away with this.”
After initially eschewing Washington public policy
debates, which were seen in Silicon Valley as pay-to-play politics, Google has
developed an influence operation that is arguably more muscular and
sophisticated than that of any other American company. It spent $9.5 million on
lobbying through the first half of this year — more than almost any other
company. It helped organize conferences at which key regulators overseeing
investigations into the company were presented with pro-Google arguments,
sometimes without disclosure of Google’s role.
Among the most effective — if little examined — tools in
Google’s public policy toolbox has been its funding of nonprofit groups from
across the political spectrum. This year, it has donated to 170 such groups,
according to Google’s voluntary disclosures on Google’s website. While Google
does not indicate how much cash was donated, the number of beneficiaries has
grown exponentially since it started disclosing its donations in 2010, when it
gave to 45 groups.
Some tech lobbyists, think tank officials and scholars
argue that the efforts help explain why Google has mostly avoided damaging
regulatory and enforcement decisions in the United States of the sort levied by
the European Union in late June.
But Google’s Washington alliances could be tested in the
coming months. Google emerged as a flash point in the latest skirmish of the
culture wars this month after one of its male engineers posted a critique of
the company’s efforts to diversify. And its data collection continues fueling
questions about its commitment to privacy.
Then there are the mounting concerns about the market
dominance of Google, which handles an overwhelming majority of all internet
searches globally and dominates internet advertising. Its alleged tilting of
search results to favor its services over those offered by competitors led to
the European Union’s $2.7 billion antitrust penalty in June.
The Open Markets’ statement that drew Mr. Schmidt’s ire
praised the fine, and called on United States regulators to more aggressively
enforce antitrust rules against Google, Amazon and “other dominant platform
monopolists.”
Last month, Democratic congressional leaders rolled out a
policy platform that included a pledge to dismantle monopolies, including in
cable and internet service, which some read as a direct challenge to Google in
particular. That sentiment — which appears to have some support from populist
elements of President Trump’s base — diverges sharply from the approach that
had been taken by most Democrats until recently.
Google’s willingness to spread cash around the think
tanks and advocacy groups focused on internet and telecommunications policy has
effectively muted, if not silenced, criticism of the company over the past
several years, said Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center. His group, which does not accept any corporate funding, has
played a leading role in calling out Google and other tech companies for
alleged privacy violations. But Mr. Rotenberg said it is become increasingly
difficult to find partners in that effort as more groups have accepted Google
funding.
“There are simply fewer groups that are available to
speak up about Google’s activities that threaten online privacy,” Mr. Rotenberg
said. “The groups that should be speaking up aren’t.”
Kitty Bennett contributed research.
Comments
Post a Comment