Google-chaired think tank says Google's No.1 for digital rights

Who'd a thunk it?

Just fancy that! A Washington think tank chaired by Eric Schmidt, Alphabet Inc’s executive chairman, has given Alphabet Inc. an award for "protecting your digital rights”.

Schmidt became executive chairman of the New America Foundation, which had built a strong reputation as a non-partisan and imaginative policy think tank, in 2008.

The following year, the foundation created an “Open Technology Initiative” and the think tank began to march in lockstep with Google’s own policy agenda.

This is called “policy laundering” – the act of legitimising a policy, or attempting to seize control of a debate, via third parties. Another useful description is “carousel propaganda”, coined by blogger Frank Fisher, an analogue of “carousel fraud”.

This week the foundation trumpeted the first results of its “Ranking Digital Rights” project. Coming up smelling of roses were Google, “the highest ranking internet company”, and Vodafone. The team made a gloomy conclusion:

"Nearly half the companies in the Index scored less than 25 per cent, showing a serious deficit of respect for users’ freedom of expression and privacy."

But the shortcomings of the research project are quickly apparent on closer examination.

The RDR project did not empirically measure the behaviour of the companies. It merely performed a textual analysis of their mission statements, click-through policies, and public utterances. It examined what they say they do, not what they actually do. But then it didn’t measure it against reality.

“We did not fact check their statements,” project head Rebecca McKinnon admitted this week in a video webcast. "What we're hoping is this create a set of data based on what companies claim they're doing."

"This is a conversation starter,” she added.

The RDR’s narrow definition of “digital rights” is also problematic. For example, being able to own and control your own stuff is a human right, one that requires no corporate entity, no registration process (in most of the world) and no expensive guru to interpret. That’s a right recognised in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and many other declarations. Similarly, the right to protect your reputation is widely recognised, and highly valued in Europe.

Google, and other large Silicon Valley consumer data processing giants, don’t like these. So these rights are excluded from the Project’s remit. If either right is mentioned, it’s only in the context of a “threat” to the “open internet”. Indeed, companies that respected ownership and followed the law in respecting it, were downgraded by the Project. Much of civil society marches to Google’s drum beat: the Washington Post documented Google’s cash flowing to 140 think tanks, civil society groups, and academics. In recent years civil society groups have pocketed millions in cash directly from the corporations they’re supposed to scrutinise.

After congratulating herself and her team, McKinnon boldly proposed a solution: creating huge amounts of more work for her and her team. The next steps, she said, would involve creating "a framework for conversations with a lot more companies, a framework for a lot more research [and] a framework for a lot more advocacy.”

Concluding the launch discussion, chair Micah Sifry noted that Yahoo! had already put out a corporate PR statement vowing to examine (but not necessarily take heed of) the project.

"You've already had an impact with one of the biggest internet companies,” he congratulated her.

So that’s all right then. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics

Other stories you might like

  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
    Overhaul of Chrome add-ons set for January, Google says it's for all our own good

    Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.

    Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.

    The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.

    Continue reading
  • I was fired for blowing the whistle on cult's status in Google unit, says contractor
    The internet giant, a doomsday religious sect, and a lawsuit in Silicon Valley

    A former Google video producer has sued the internet giant alleging he was unfairly fired for blowing the whistle on a religious sect that had all but taken over his business unit. 

    The lawsuit demands a jury trial and financial restitution for "religious discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation and related causes of action." It alleges Peter Lubbers, director of the Google Developer Studio (GDS) film group in which 34-year-old plaintiff Kevin Lloyd worked, is not only a member of The Fellowship of Friends, the exec was influential in growing the studio into a team that, in essence, funneled money back to the fellowship.

    In his complaint [PDF], filed in a California Superior Court in Silicon Valley, Lloyd lays down a case that he was fired for expressing concerns over the fellowship's influence at Google, specifically in the GDS. When these concerns were reported to a manager, Lloyd was told to drop the issue or risk losing his job, it is claimed. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022