SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New Report Reveals Google's Extensive Financial Support for European Academics and Think Tanks
Today, Campaign for Accountability (CfA), a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group focused on public accountability, released a new report revealing how Google has paid tens of millions of euros to European academic institutions over the past decade to develop an influential network of friendly European academics who write research papers supporting the tech giant's business interests.
CfA Executive Director Daniel E. Stevens stated, "Google's lavish funding of academics and think tanks helps the company exert a subtle and hidden form of influence on European policymakers. As Europe looks to crack down on Google's excesses, regulators need to be aware that a good deal of the academic research defending the company is written by Google-funded institutions."
Spanning the length and breadth of Europe, Google-funded think thanks have published hundreds of papers on issues central to the company's business, from antitrust enforcement to regulation governing privacy, copyright, jobs, and the "right to be forgotten." Events organized by Google-funded institutions have attracted many of the European policymakers charged with creating and enforcing regulation affecting the company.
One of the donors to the Campaign for Accountability is Oracle.
Also at Politico.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:33AM (3 children)
All the big companies target schools, often much earlier than college. Get people used to your technology, get people used to thinking positive things about your company. If you do this at a young age, it tends to stick well into adulthood, even in the face of later negative information.
Plus: Google has been very clever about portraying itself as a super place to work. Get the top graduates from bachelor/master programs wanting to work at your company, and take your pick of the best. It's a clever strategy...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bobthecimmerian on Saturday March 17 2018, @12:45PM
I don't think you're talking about the same problem that the article describes. You're talking about Apple, Microsoft, and Google providing their respective products to schools at very low cost to get children accustomed to using their products. I agree it happens everywhere, and while I understand why it makes sense for the companies to do it, I think it's very bad for society as a whole. From the perspective of Apple, Microsoft, and Google it's pure genius - 95% of the population finishes school with complete comfort with iPads, Windows, Microsoft Office, and Chromebooks so the odds of getting people to take a serious look at any alternative are dramatically reduced.
But that's not what this article is describing. As far as I can tell, it's describing giving research grants and funding the construction and staffing of departments. Even if there's no explicit agreement, "I give you this money, and you write nice things about what our company does and don't write anything negative about our company", that's clearly what Google intended. This move makes sense for Google, just like providing equipment and services to schools at low cost makes sense for Google. But it means policy decisions and public opinion of Google are unfairly influenced.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:40PM
With the tech company he worked for 20 years ago. He's also got hostilities against 'the other team's company as well.
It's disappointing, but not unexpected. I on the other hand learned early and continue to learn not to trust anyone, corporate or person, because in the end, whether they are your blood, fuck buddy, or friend of twenty years, they will always choose what is best for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 21 2018, @04:32AM
> All the big companies target schools, often much earlier than college
At least the Apple computers performed and provided transferable skills. The Microsoft garbage, not so much. There is the issue of which is more practical to use. The answer is not Microsoft. Microsoft is the question. "NO!" is the answer.
Back when some universities had a mixture of Microsoft and Apple PCs , before students each had their own PC or laptop, you could really see the difference in the computer centers. Computer centers at that point had become large rooms with university PCs which the students could use for their tasks. At popular times of day and 24/7 during crunch time, there were long lines of students waiting for computers. The pain point was well over 30 minutes and close to 45 minutes. Students would rather wait that amount of time in queue for an Apple to become available than site down at a Microsoft box.
What changed was that Microsoft was successfully able to infiltrate and eliminate whole IT departments and replace them with embedded teams, starting usually with the IT department heads. These were just Microsoft resellers but on the university payroll.