The New America Foundation’s Open Markets group was a rare, loud voice of protest against Google’s ever-growing consolidation of economic and technological power around the world. But New America, like many of its fellow think tanks, received millions in funding from one of the targets of its anti-monopoly work, and according to a New York Times report today, pulled the plug after the company’s chief executive had enough dissent.
After EU regulators fined Google $2.7 billion earlier this summer, Barry Lynn, who ran the Open Markets division, cheered the decision, adding that “U.S. enforcers should apply the traditional American approach to network monopoly, which is to cleanly separate ownership of the network from ownership of the products and services sold on that network, as they did in the original Microsoft case of the late 1990s.” It didn’t take long for Lynn and his colleagues to suffer the consequences, the Times reports:
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.
[…]
“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.”
New America president Anne-Marie Slaughter quickly informed Lynn that his team would no longer be welcome at the think tank, presenting about as tidy and flagrant a case of conflict of interest and monied suppression of criticism as one can imagine. But on Twitter, Slaughter disputed the Times report, claiming that it was simply “false”:
This story is false. @Newamerica will issue statement shortly. We are proud of Open Markets work. https://t.co/UGpWG5UdkF
— Anne-Marie Slaughter (@SlaughterAM) August 30, 2017
New America’s statement, however, disputes literally not a single fact in the Times story or any of Lynn’s claims:
New America's Response to the New York Times: https://t.co/JGmSk1oldY pic.twitter.com/VS6DJTKVIH
— New America (@NewAmerica) August 30, 2017
The Intercept reviewed the full termination email sent from Slaughter to Lynn that was cited and quoted in the Times report and found that they were reported and characterized with complete accuracy. The full text does, however, show that Slaughter threatened to make Lynn’s firing more difficult for him and his team should it generate any negative publicity for New America.
Neither Slaughter nor New America responded to requests to specify what was false or even misleading about the story. Over email, a Google spokesperson told The Intercept that “Eric [Schmidt] never threatened to cut off funding to New America and that we had no role in eliminating the Open Markets Initiative.” The spokesperson added that she would not deny Schmidt’s “displeasure” with the Open Markets team, “but displeasure and pressure are two totally different things — he did not imply pressure on NAF re: Open Markets. To characterize it that way would be totally inaccurate.”
But the displeasure of one of the most powerful men in the world is, of course, itself a form of pressure. It’s safe to assume that the likeliest explanation is the most obvious one: Eric Schmidt, formerly an executive at Sun Microsystems, which itself later came under intense global antitrust scrutiny, didn’t want his money paying to promote similar scrutiny for his monopolistic practices. So, he leveraged his power as head of a company with a market cap of over $600 billion to get what he wanted (it wouldn’t be Google’s first time).
New America and Slaughter, however, are most certainly worthy of blame, apparently caving to pressure — whether it was spoken or didn’t need to be — from the chief executive of the world’s most powerful technology firm, a complete dereliction of whatever purpose for being a think tank is supposed to have. Perhaps New America — along with all the rest of Think Tank Land and academia — should reconsider cashing checks from the likes of Google, even if it does buy an “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab” in the office. Even when the Devil’s motto is Don’t Be Evil, a deal might not ultimately be in your best interests.
But for Matt Stoller, up until very recently the most vocal member of the Open Markets team, there’s a significant upshot to getting the boot. “I think the thing that’s great about this, whenever you’re in politics and policy, it’s hard to prove you’re effective,” he told The Intercept. “This is just Google just saying you guys are too effective.” Even Lynn shares the feeling: “We’ve been martyr-ized,” he added. “We’ll be growing.”
For now, the new group will call itself Citizens Against Monopoly. Led by Lynn, it will be chaired by Zephyr Teachout.
Update: Aug. 30, 2017
This article was updated with comments from a Google spokesperson.
Update: Aug. 31st, 2017
“In the interest of transparency,” the New America Foundation has released the text of three emails sent from Slaughter to Lynn. Lynn’s emails to Slaughter were not included.
Top photo: Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt attends the CDU Economics Conference of the Economic Council on June 09, 2015 in Berlin.
If such institutions value their independence they might consider to resort to anonymous crowd-funding in the future to operate with an open mind.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whatever one may think of what happened here or their opinion of Google — and there’s plenty of room for debate about either of those things — the premise of this article is either disingenuous or reflects a level of reading incompetence beyond imagination.
“New America’s statement, however, disputes literally not a single fact in the Times story or any of Lynn’s claims.” Yet, right there in the first two sentences, the statement does *precisely* that:
“Today’s New York Times story alleges that Google lobbied New America to expel the Open Markets program because of this press release. I want to be clear: this claim is absolutely false.”
They are clearly disputing the “fact” that Google lobbied for the expulsion of Open Markets from New America. They are also disputing that Open Markets was expelled as a result of said press release. Now, if you want to argue that they didn’t present any evidence for their disputing those “facts” I’d grant you that. But that wasn’t your claim.
Again, in the email follow up, the Google spokesperson makes it clear “Eric [Schmidt] never threatened to cut off funding to New America and that we had no role in eliminating the Open Markets Initiative.”
And you seem to know that those statements are the polar opposite of what you claim them to be because you then retreat to the argument that “the displeasure of one of the most powerful men in the world is, of course, itself a form of pressure.” Well, yeah, ok. But if this is your standard, then you defeat every concept of restraint a powerful person might employ in a situation. Your logic basically yields this scenario: “Yesterday, President Obama refused to bomb the North Koreans. But he did express displeasure, which really is just as bad.”
Please.
Cast as much doubt as you want about New America’s actions and actual motives; I think that doubt is warranted. But when you write something so distorted, you call into question your motives. New America’s questionable motives in this situation don’t need to be enhanced by your own false reporting. Just let the truth speak for itself. Otherwise, you are no longer a credible source.
Instead of writing an email that will be ignored to Google’s CEO, which open markets/citizensagainstmonopoly are suggesting, why not change your browser default search engine from google to something like duckduckgo? You can still use google if you end up having trouble finding something but at least 99% of your searches will not put money in googles pockets.
The other player here is the US government, or at least the elements of it that are aligned with and depend on Google for infrastructure and personnel (as outlined so well in other articles The Intercept has published). We all remember how the State Department sent Google to meet with Julian Assange. It’s no surprise that Google would send the State Department (Anne-Marie Slaughter) to deal with its critics. And things like the EU fine and China blocking Google are no doubt seen as national security issues in those circles as well.
Lynn simply didn’t play with “institutional collegiality.” Gotta love that. That’s straight out of the neoliberal canon, that is. It sounds like pure New Democrat bullshit.
Entered this in both Duck Duck Go and Google. . .
Barry Lynn Open America
Funny how Duck Duck Go is delivering up so many more reports of a rather more interesting quality. . . Looks like I’ll have to go to them first from now on.
I first noticed problems with Google search results in late ’09 or early ’10. Programming computers most of my life I frequently spot operating changes to algorithms I’m familiar with, for whatever reason. Searches I’d done many times during the ’08 election, specifically on Clinton/DNC history, no longer appeared in search results. It seemed they were being systematically excluded from search results – for an establishment political machine. By 2011 or so I’d quit using Google to search anything ever if I could help it, and started only using DuckDuckGo.
One of the first releases from the Ed archive validated that decision when PRISM documents showed Google working hand in hand with Big Brother, probably handing them someone’s entire search history any time they were asked.
Sorry, that was supposed to be “Clinton/DLC history.” The Democratic Leadership Council’s history and records were purchased by The Clinton Foundation sometime in ’10 or ’11 (to hide their hands in neoliberalist policy?), and even Wikipedia started putting disclaimers on DLC info pages.
DuckDuckGo consistently returns most excellent searches. You saw the article that said Google was suppressing less mainstream (neoliberal) publications such as TI, didn’t you?
Even when I enter “The Intercept.” because I am looking for a particular story, I’ll get a lot of Time, Newsweek, and other hits instead. But I persist.
On NA’s website – Open Markets is still up. I didn’t know Matthew Stoller was there – I think I remember him from Daily Kos… https://www.newamerica.org/open-markets/our-people/
Are there really think tanks that don’t say exactly what their funders want, yet get money for it? How? WHO? What do you have to do to get in one?
The people who play the game know the rules. It would have been acceptable to suggest that Google was not absolutely perfect; that would have demonstrated the admirable independence of the think tank. But to advocate that the federal government impose a fine on Google was way over the line. That sort of thing will get you defunded every single time.
Yes. They are very private, though. The reason is that most very rich persons (or families) has no desire to end up like Michael Jackson, surrounded by their own echoes. Because of the powers of their wealth amplifying their wills and nature, they will need to pay someone to say: “No, that is truly a bad idea, Sir/Madam” to be stable and not run off the tracks!
Train as a professor, butler, valet, lawyer specialising in foundations, private client investment services, that kind of thing, is what one does.
Businesses have boards of directors, nominatively serving a similar function, although it has been crapified beyond belief (and economic sustainability).
“Google Effect” The latest meme/phrase being promoted by local media in San Jose,CA, since the city agreed to a plan for a “Google Village “downtown., which is supposed be bigger than their Mountain View HQ. The details of the agreement won’t be made public for a few more months, but Google’s partners have been buying up large parcels downtown and in nearby Sunnyvale.
This city is already in the midst of a housing crisis
Although I have the highest regard for Mr. Dayne after reading his outstanding book, Chain of Title (and anyone who hasn’t read this, along with The Case for the Corporate Death Penalty, by Mary K. Ramirez, doesn’t fully understand the global economic meltdown) I have never considered Lynn to be anything other than a hack, and the same of course goes for Slaughter.
Lynn’s book, Cornered, was soooo full of fictions — the only decent item was in the Notes section at the end of the book, not really covered in the main text, explaining how Goldman Sachs and the other banksters created the Freight Forward Futures exchange, allowing them to speculate up the price of transportation (along with energy/oil futures, and the chemicals used in the refinery process for full spectrum speculation).
Admittedly, it is good to see Lynn finally being honest, but as a Nixon henchman once said:
“Too little, too late!”
Sorry, that was Mr. Dayen.
Still haven’t forgiven you for the California single payer and Rendon piece yet, Dave, but keep trying, please.
Google has to demonitize and refuse to index TheIntercept for being “FakeNews” immediately!
(funny how when their hillary autocomplete and other problems during the election came to light, no one here cared).
Hey, welcome to the real world… Money does whatever Money wants