Google Exposed: New Evidence Reveals an Extreme Level of Manipulation, Corruption

in #internet7 years ago

In September of 2011, Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt testified before Congress that Google was not manipulating search results to favor its own shopping service (it was). Schmidt also denied allegations that the company was a monopoly, citing a research paper written by David Balto, former policy director of the Federal Trade Commission. What Schmidt neglected to tell the Senate Judiciary antitrust committee was that Google had funded that research paper.

And that’s not the only one, according to a recently published report by the non-profit, non-partisan watchdog organization, the Google Transparency Project, which identified “329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policy matters of interest to Google that were in some way funded by the company.”

What’s more, the academic research funded by Google covered “a wide range of policy and legal issues of critical importance to Google’s bottom line, including antitrust, privacy, net neutrality, search neutrality, patents and copyright.”

GTP’s report reveals a shocking list of sources that Google paid off. They include:

“[A]cademics, think-tanks, law firms, and economic consultants from some of the leading law schools and universities in the country, including Stanford, Harvard, MIT, University of California Berkeley, UCLA, Rutgers, Georgetown, Northwestern Law School, and Columbia.”

Internationally, GTP reports, “Google-funded studies were written by academics at some of the most prestigious universities in Europe, including Oxford (U.K.), Edinburgh University (U.K.), Berlin School of Economics (Germany), Heinrich Heine University (Germany), and KU Leuven (Belgium).”

The Wall Street Journal took their research a bit further, and what they discovered is astounding. WSJ reported:

“Some researchers share their papers before publication and let Google give suggestions, according to thousands of pages of emails obtained by the Journal in public-records requests of more than a dozen university professors. The professors don’t always reveal Google’s backing in their research, and few disclosed the financial ties in subsequent articles on the same or similar topics, the Journal found.”

University of Illinois law professor Paul Heald neglected to disclose the $18,830 he received from Google to fund “an idea on copyrights he thought would be useful to Google.” When he was questioned in an interview about his failure to mention his sponsor, Heald replied, “Oh, wow. No, I didn’t. That’s really bad. That’s purely oversight.” The professor also claims the money had no influence on his work.

Google has paid anywhere between $5,000 and $40,000 per paper, and the number of studies surged the highest in 2012 when the company was being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission and European regulators for antitrust violations. At least 50 studies on antitrust issues authored between 2011 and 2013 were bought and paid for by Google.

According to a former employee and a former Google lobbyist, Google officials in Washington compiled wish lists of academic papers and then searched for willing authors to complete the desired work. Google often provided working titles, abstracts, and budgets for each proposed paper. Upon completion, they were pitched to government officials. The former lobbyist told the Journal that Google would “sometimes pay travel expenses for professors to meet with congressional aides and administration officials.”

Google’s massive influence on academic research should come as no surprise given the former CEO’s openness in discussing the company’s hand in writing legislation. At the Washington Ideas Forum, Schmidt described his experience working with the U.S. government, revealing that “The average American doesn’t realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists…and it’s shocking, now, having spent a fair amount of time in the system – how the system actually works.”

Shocking is an understatement. It’s absolutely terrifying how the system works. A multi-billion dollar company with a monopoly on the internet not only writes the laws, but funds academic studies to shield them from further laws that might prevent them from becoming even more dangerous, all while harvesting private data from over a billion people and developing AI technology that allows two neural networks to communicate using inhuman cryptographic language indecipherable to humans.

And the executive chairman of this disturbingly powerful corporation is a man who has stated that Google’s famous “Don’t be evil” slogan was “the stupidest rule ever.” This is the same man who told an audience in Washington, D.C., that “We don’t need you to type. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

What could go wrong?

This article has been shared under creative commons licence 3.0 and with attribution to http://theantimedia.org/google-exposed/

Sort:  

The most egregious crime Google commits is it's sharing data with the NSA and similar entities, both governmental and private, to my mind.

People die. Google profits.

You can all take part in giving Google a middle finger by using duckduckgo.com
It's a good search engine and not a part of the NSA-Silicon Valley crime syndicate.

duckduckgo is the default in my browser. =D

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of google is a former US-gov employee and still an advisor.

Jesus, you'd think Google was a Pharmaceutical Company, Defense Contractor, Insurance Group, Banking Group or something!

When will they wise up and just start hiring former FTC officials as consultants?

Look up Alphabet, it's the mother company of "Google".

Great report and valuable OSINT.
Resharing @phibetaiota
Will follow your work from here on out.

~The Management

Imgur

Thank you very much!

Funding are hard to find so you don't want to bite the *hand that feeds you.

Vote for witness @cryptohazard
cryptohazard.gif

This post has been ranked within the top 80 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jul 22. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $11.30 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.

See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jul 22 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.

If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.

Yeah, it's tough to trust a company who needs to say "Don't be evil" to cloak their actions.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.16
JST 0.030
BTC 59758.56
ETH 2523.42
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.47