How Google quietly funds Europe’s leading tech policy institutes(newstatesman.com)
newstatesman.com
How Google quietly funds Europe’s leading tech policy institutes
https://www.newstatesman.com/business/sectors/2021/07/how-google-quietly-funds-europe-s-leading-tech-policy-institutes
57 comments
> Did the outcomes of research at these institutions change after receiving money from Google and Facebook?
Perhaps not the outcomes. But some PI could have said "let's not research that, because Google might not like it".
Perhaps not the outcomes. But some PI could have said "let's not research that, because Google might not like it".
I find it unlikely, this would quickly earn them the reputation of being a turncoat. A bad reputation is pretty hard to shake off. Ten good deeds weigh the same as one bad deed.
Idk, it might be pretty hard to work at an institution where Facebook provides a lot of funding and not have that filter in to your mind at all, consciously or subconsciously. Let's say your considering a range of topics to pursue next and you know Facebook is a big funder, you may just choose not to pursue "is depression strongly positively correlated with Instagram use in teens" and pursue something else
This is exactly how manipulation is done and the reason for companies to do the funding.
It’s much less sinister than that. Facebook funds PhDs in some fields because they want experts in that field to a) exist, b) like Facebook.
Even the way you're phrasing it, sounds like PhDs don't get to a) exist without Facebook's blessing
It is generally the case that things don't exist without funding, correct. Different countries have different political consensus on how much tax money to pour into funding PhDs for basic research, but /all/ do to some extent as far as I know.
I think you should read Sapiens by Harrari, he writes about the interaction between universities, capitalism and democracy. Very illuminating to me.
I think you should read Sapiens by Harrari, he writes about the interaction between universities, capitalism and democracy. Very illuminating to me.
We know what happens when research is founded by non-impartial entities. We've seen it in the context of the tobacco settlement.
The researchers are failing to disclose their financial relationship with e.g. Google while publishing papers about e.g. Google. This is a clear cut conflict of interest which should get them banned from publishing.
Agreed. If there are norms around transparency of funding that are not being followed then that is a big problem.
I find it disturbing that academics do not routinely disclose their conflicts of interest in their works. In the age when the scientific papers quality is falling, we don't need yet another reason to question scientific papers integrity. Without disclosure some people will think it was done on purpose.
> In the age when the scientific papers quality is falling
[Citation needed]?
[Citation needed]?
Most academic researchers (https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a) believe that we're facing a phenomenon called the "reproducibility crisis" or "replication crisis", where experimental papers regularly get published even though the experiment does not work as described. This leads to more general doubts about the quality of papers in general - if you know you can't trust that experiments will reproduce, should you trust that survey data is accurate or that analyses are correct?
That isn't the point I was making. The replication crisis is a real problem, but what I am objecting to is the far more serious allegation that overall the quality of academic research is dropping.
Science is very very difficult, a journal will try to only publish things it thinks are true however papers (especially in the more informal channels some journals have/less prestigious journals) which are merely interesting or could-be-right are published all the time. That mostly isn't a bad thing - something has to be published properly to be considered properly and fleshed out, dead ends are still ends.
Science is very very difficult, a journal will try to only publish things it thinks are true however papers (especially in the more informal channels some journals have/less prestigious journals) which are merely interesting or could-be-right are published all the time. That mostly isn't a bad thing - something has to be published properly to be considered properly and fleshed out, dead ends are still ends.
Common knowledge does mot need citations. Am an academic.
Am an academic too. I don't find this to be common knowledge, but a common misconception. Would like to see a citation
It's also common knowledge that even comparing the academic workings of two sub fields is non-trivial
But reproducibility is essential for science, and it has been discussed on HN articles frequently in the past few years that this is very difficult nowadays. Let alone the maligned incentives for funding academia (you are biased to have “big breakthroughs” that catch headlines so you can get more funding, rather than getting out the truth), etc.
Just take a look at this search query for “academia” on HN:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Just take a look at this search query for “academia” on HN:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
> in the past few years that this is very difficult nowadays.
I strongly disagree. It has always been as difficult as today (if not more), it's just that these days were aware of it.
I strongly disagree. It has always been as difficult as today (if not more), it's just that these days were aware of it.
HN is full of armchair polemicists and contrarians (on academia I am not one of those, but am for other matters), so I wouldn't consider that an unbiased sample.
It's not though. And for a topic such as this where people in academia are going to be obviously biased, citation is all the more important.
[deleted]
Guys are digressing from the relevant part of your comment. It looks very much obvious to me that academics should state where their funding comes from, just like non-profits have to do.
>academics do not routinely disclose
What do you mean? Academics routinely do disclose their funding. In practically every paper published they list where their fund comes from.
If someone publishes papers without disclosing sources, that's a newsworthy exception in my opinion. Not proof that it's routine.
What do you mean? Academics routinely do disclose their funding. In practically every paper published they list where their fund comes from.
If someone publishes papers without disclosing sources, that's a newsworthy exception in my opinion. Not proof that it's routine.
According to the article the Humboldt gets about €1 million per year, I checked 10+ publications from this year [0] but I couldn't find a single one funded with Google money. Now, this doesn't mean that something fishy is going on but it would be interesting to find the research that Google did fund since it doesn't seem like the funds were used for regular research.
[0] https://www.hiig.de/en/publications/
[0] https://www.hiig.de/en/publications/
When a researcher receives direct funding they will disclose the source. It gets interesting when the funding source is indirect, let's say the departmental chair is funded through the Mercatus Institute. Of course any new faculty member will not go against the prevailing departmental winds and they need not disclose where the department gets a good chunk of funding from.
In the US the way to influence politics is campaign contributions to politicians. In Europe that kind of blatant influence is frowned upon, but it seems like companies are still trying to take a page from the same playbook by influencing politics through academics instead.
Lobbying in general is way more corrupt in Europe than in US. In the US the fact that professional lobbyists exist,
puts pressure on non official operations and makes it easier to track registered lobbyists. This does not make US based activities less censurable, but in Europe the current model is one of voluntary registration.
Google based lobbying actions in the European Union are no less intense: 249 meetings! Its amazing how much time EU officials seem to have.
https://www.integritywatch.eu/organizations
From their results looks like Google is not getting back their money worth...
Google based lobbying actions in the European Union are no less intense: 249 meetings! Its amazing how much time EU officials seem to have.
https://www.integritywatch.eu/organizations
From their results looks like Google is not getting back their money worth...
Just to be clear I'm not saying it's not a problem, but:
> 249 meetings!
The parliament alone has more then 700 members, idk. if 249 for one of the largest tech companies is really that bad. The problem are less the number of meetings but a lot of other things around it.
> 249 meetings!
The parliament alone has more then 700 members, idk. if 249 for one of the largest tech companies is really that bad. The problem are less the number of meetings but a lot of other things around it.
Make that actually 260 meetings....sometimes 12 times with the same persons. Full PDF List here:
https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultatio...
50000 staff, a dozen different institutions... Really not a high number.
They are not meeting with the commissioner for fishing so this is not to be divided equally between all departments :-)
This represents a meeting every week, for 5 years in a row. There are 27 EU countries, and approximately 25 million active enterprises in the EU. Not all these companies are of the same size but for large companies you have more than 25,000. That is a large footprint. Are these EU officers able to cope with all that and still provide so much attention to a few companies ?
"Lobbyists and Bureaucrats in Brussels: Capitalism’s Brokers"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326878033_Lobbyists...
"...With over 30,000 lobbyists in town, Brussels is often called the European capital of lobbying. Despite this, little is known on how this political system works in practice. This book offers an unprecedented window into the everyday relationships between bureaucrats and interest representatives. Where the media only shows lobbyists as they meet MEPs and submit amendments, the book argues that the bulk of their work is done in close contact with EU bureaucrats - a form of 'quiet politics' developed by the business community, targeting officials with little public exposure..."
This represents a meeting every week, for 5 years in a row. There are 27 EU countries, and approximately 25 million active enterprises in the EU. Not all these companies are of the same size but for large companies you have more than 25,000. That is a large footprint. Are these EU officers able to cope with all that and still provide so much attention to a few companies ?
"Lobbyists and Bureaucrats in Brussels: Capitalism’s Brokers"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326878033_Lobbyists...
"...With over 30,000 lobbyists in town, Brussels is often called the European capital of lobbying. Despite this, little is known on how this political system works in practice. This book offers an unprecedented window into the everyday relationships between bureaucrats and interest representatives. Where the media only shows lobbyists as they meet MEPs and submit amendments, the book argues that the bulk of their work is done in close contact with EU bureaucrats - a form of 'quiet politics' developed by the business community, targeting officials with little public exposure..."
I don't think the meetings with the staff are a thing or are reported on. But I could be wrong.
Are you referring to the EU or or an individual European country? I'd be curious what concretely you are comparing as from all I've ever seen and read the US always came off as 'here you can buy laws' while e.g. EU has extensive scrutiny and consultation procedures and policy is very consensus driven.
I am commenting and contrasting on Lobbying activities and their lack regulation in Europe and particularity in the European Union. If we discuss corruption in general, frankly, in Europe, the revolving door between business and government is even higher. Most countries are the size of a small US state.
Also most european countries have campaign budget limitations, so campaign contributions don't have that much weight to begin with.
> In the US the way to influence politics is campaign contributions to politicians.
I mean, the US has a ton of industry funded "think tanks" that are effectively unregistered lobbyists. If they spend >50% of their time lobbying, they have to register. Some probably cross that line and don't register.
Spending money on lobbying makes a lot of noise, but donating to a "think tank" can be stealthy.
It could be interesting to scrape / crowd-source the public calendars of house/senate committee members and agency commissioners to identify these orgs and the scale of their lobbying activities. The results might surprise you.
I mean, the US has a ton of industry funded "think tanks" that are effectively unregistered lobbyists. If they spend >50% of their time lobbying, they have to register. Some probably cross that line and don't register.
Spending money on lobbying makes a lot of noise, but donating to a "think tank" can be stealthy.
It could be interesting to scrape / crowd-source the public calendars of house/senate committee members and agency commissioners to identify these orgs and the scale of their lobbying activities. The results might surprise you.
Think tanks don't lobby at all. What they do is design favorable conclusions for their backers, and the studies and press releases to dishonestly back those conclusions up and to generate pithy quotes. The politicians that are then lobbied by those backers now have something to say when interviewed about their political activities in favor of who is being lobbied for.
Politicians need a media strategy in order to do the things that they're paid to do by private interests, and think tanks provide that strategy.
Politicians need a media strategy in order to do the things that they're paid to do by private interests, and think tanks provide that strategy.
[deleted]
As an academic economist, I am glad they are doing this. (Disclosure: I don’t work on platform or network issues, nor do I have a funding relationship with any of these companies.)
As the article notes (and as is true) there are issues in the regulation of platform markets and network goods in economics which are still quite unclear, even in theory. It isn’t clear what the right (theoretical) model is or what the welfare costs or benefits are, so the best way to regulate these firms or do competition policy in this area is similarly unclear.
What’s more, even if you have a model, that’s not enough to convince people. You will generally need data to estimate it to get an idea of what the costs or benefits of different market structures or regulations would be in practice. These firms are the only firms that can provide that data. (Exception: the government can demand it as part of an antitrust investigation, but that is generally locked down and unavailable for research.)
Anyone accepting their money should absolutely disclose that relationship in any project remotely related to those issues, but you can generally find such disclosures, at least with economists.
I also very much doubt that a research grant of the size of academic research grants I’m aware of is enough to “buy” someone’s opinion.
This is not some nefarious conspiracy!
As the article notes (and as is true) there are issues in the regulation of platform markets and network goods in economics which are still quite unclear, even in theory. It isn’t clear what the right (theoretical) model is or what the welfare costs or benefits are, so the best way to regulate these firms or do competition policy in this area is similarly unclear.
What’s more, even if you have a model, that’s not enough to convince people. You will generally need data to estimate it to get an idea of what the costs or benefits of different market structures or regulations would be in practice. These firms are the only firms that can provide that data. (Exception: the government can demand it as part of an antitrust investigation, but that is generally locked down and unavailable for research.)
Anyone accepting their money should absolutely disclose that relationship in any project remotely related to those issues, but you can generally find such disclosures, at least with economists.
I also very much doubt that a research grant of the size of academic research grants I’m aware of is enough to “buy” someone’s opinion.
This is not some nefarious conspiracy!
Disclosure: I worked in Google Legal for 3 years, and helped hire a person from the gov't, who is now with their Public Policy Dep't, AFAIK.
Rather than argue if the $$$ does or doesn't affect their research, or if they should disclose, let's do a thought experiment:
Dr. Recent Hire, who lacks tenure, thinks "hey, I'd like to do a study on Internet Censorship. YouTube does a lot of that, don't they?"
If you honestly believe the department chairman will just wave that through, knowing how much Google will hate it, you are pretty naive.
Rather than argue if the $$$ does or doesn't affect their research, or if they should disclose, let's do a thought experiment:
Dr. Recent Hire, who lacks tenure, thinks "hey, I'd like to do a study on Internet Censorship. YouTube does a lot of that, don't they?"
If you honestly believe the department chairman will just wave that through, knowing how much Google will hate it, you are pretty naive.
In fact, a "think tank" on Google's Public Policy list actually fired their anti-monopoly team for being too critical of Google: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mattstoller2/google-tri...
Thanks for speaking up, more people who have been inside need to be telling it like it is on what these relationships do.
Thanks for speaking up, more people who have been inside need to be telling it like it is on what these relationships do.
I knew that article looked familiar: it's four years old.
But yeah, Big Tech is not going to subsidize its enemies, anymore than Big Tobacco was. They may not tell you explicitly "don't publish that" but they certainly can cut back or cancel your grant.
But yeah, Big Tech is not going to subsidize its enemies, anymore than Big Tobacco was. They may not tell you explicitly "don't publish that" but they certainly can cut back or cancel your grant.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment. Do you think my department chair has any influence over my research agenda?
He does not. Not even the smallest amount. This is the case across (at the very least) every economics department at any US university, and likely most other academic departments too. There is nothing for him to “waive through,” and certainly no option for him to not approve of something.
Furthermore, if I get a good publication out of a project, the department chair will be pleased for me whether Google likes it or not.
He does not. Not even the smallest amount. This is the case across (at the very least) every economics department at any US university, and likely most other academic departments too. There is nothing for him to “waive through,” and certainly no option for him to not approve of something.
Furthermore, if I get a good publication out of a project, the department chair will be pleased for me whether Google likes it or not.
I'm happy for you. Does your department get money from Google?
Your use of "waive" where I said "wave" sent me to the dictionary [1]. I think either is OK but probably "wave it through" was preferable the way I used it.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-of-wave-...
Your use of "waive" where I said "wave" sent me to the dictionary [1]. I think either is OK but probably "wave it through" was preferable the way I used it.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-of-wave-...
Aren't there intrinsic conflict-of-interest risks if the only companies who can provide data for regulatory guidance are the companies themselves?
Normally when you sign an agreement with any firm to get data they get the right to look at what you did but they explicitly give up any editorial role.
They might, however, not be that excited to give you the data for a second project if they don’t like what you said in the first one? That’s possible.
So overall: maybe a small conflict?? But I don’t think the effects on the conclusion of the research are likely to be that strong. Not in economics anyway. No one’s research agenda is so tied to any one industry.
Most of the firms can comfort themselves with the thought that the readership of whatever journal you publish in is probably measured in tens or hundreds.
They might, however, not be that excited to give you the data for a second project if they don’t like what you said in the first one? That’s possible.
So overall: maybe a small conflict?? But I don’t think the effects on the conclusion of the research are likely to be that strong. Not in economics anyway. No one’s research agenda is so tied to any one industry.
Most of the firms can comfort themselves with the thought that the readership of whatever journal you publish in is probably measured in tens or hundreds.
It's not just Europe. Many of the US academics and NGOs like the EFF are heavily subsidized by Google.
Wait, the EFF is subsidized by Google?
For what it's worth, it looks like most of their funding comes from individuals: https://www.eff.org/files/annual-report/2019/index.html
For what it's worth, it looks like most of their funding comes from individuals: https://www.eff.org/files/annual-report/2019/index.html
Not only that - they also indirectly fund news agencies, for example in Europe they have the "Digital News Innovation Fund" with 140m+ USD funding in 2019. Our Slovak DennikN newsletter got $330k from Google to help to develop a paywall system.
They also got some money from Google's "Journalism Emergency Relief Fund" in 2020.
https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/digit...
https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/journalism-emergency-r...
https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/digit...
https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/journalism-emergency-r...
One needs to be careful when reading assessments and research. I want to add that the European Commission leads much of the funding of research organizations, and they also expect something in return.
The question is why should we be fine with the European Commission pushing their agenda? Being a politician is a job, like it is being a manager of a trillion dollar company. It doesn't magicaly guarantee that you are protecting the social greater good.
The question is why should we be fine with the European Commission pushing their agenda? Being a politician is a job, like it is being a manager of a trillion dollar company. It doesn't magicaly guarantee that you are protecting the social greater good.
the difference between a politician and an executive is that for one, as a european, you have democratic control of the people who make up the commision, while no one is able to do so for private companies.
It is actually quite sad how little democratic power people hold inside the companies and jobs they work at, especially compared to mid to late 20th century.
It is actually quite sad how little democratic power people hold inside the companies and jobs they work at, especially compared to mid to late 20th century.
> I want to add that the European Commission leads much of the funding of research organizations, and they also expect something in return.
> The question is why should we be fine with the European Commission pushing their agenda?
Because they're a public body and subject to a lot of strict accountability rules (and, ultimately, to the ballot box). For example, you can make FOIA-style requests to find out about their internal documents and decision-making. Good luck doing that with Google.
> The question is why should we be fine with the European Commission pushing their agenda?
Because they're a public body and subject to a lot of strict accountability rules (and, ultimately, to the ballot box). For example, you can make FOIA-style requests to find out about their internal documents and decision-making. Good luck doing that with Google.
It doesn't seem inherently shady to fund research relevant to your area of business. Did the outcomes of research at these institutions change after receiving money from Google and Facebook?