[kbenson]

It needn't be corporate censorship to have the exact same outcome. If Google is upset with an article, or thinks it's not fairly representing all sides, they are going to contact the organization and say so. They don't have to threaten removing funding, the indication that they were unhappy could have been impetus enough for Slaughter to act proactively. Even if Google was thinking of removing funding, there's nothing wrong with that either (they have the right to fund or not fund what they want). The problem is if Google dictated Slaughter's actions, which we don't know for sure, but she says they didn't (but she would say that anyway, as saying otherwise would imperil her position and the organization as a whole).

Truthfully, I'm not so sure that this isn't being played up and portrayed a specific way by the media. I was going to say the problem was that the New America Foundation had accepted too much funding from one source, but since Google has only funded them to the tune of about 21 million since 1999, unless the vast majority of that has come in recent years, that funding probably accounts for fairly little of their operating costs on a year to year basis, since they employ more than 200 people. Even if Google had given all 21 million in the last yea alone, that would basically fund all the employees at $100k salaries and pay for building costs. I suspect quite a few salaries are much higher, and there's a lot more costs than that, so I'm not sure Google's funding really amounted to a huge amount when spread over many years.

[BearGoesChirp]

> there's nothing wrong with that either (they have the right to fund or not fund what they want)

There is a limit to this.

For example, I have the right to ask you for money. I have the right to report or not report a crime I saw you commit. But if I tie those two activities together, it becomes blackmail and is illegal, despite no single action being wrong on its own.

Google has a lot of power, and they are abusing it. It may not be illegal under current law, but they cannot hide behind the defense that each micro interaction is their right.

[kbenson]

> > there's nothing wrong with that either (they have the right to fund or not fund what they want)

> There is a limit to this.

Yes, that would be why the words immediately following what you quoted were "The problem is if Google dictated Slaughter's actions".

> For example, I have the right to ask you for money. I have the right to report or not report a crime I saw you commit. But if I tie those two activities together, it becomes blackmail and is illegal, despite no single action being wrong on its own.

No,it becomes blackmail when one action is dependent on the other. Two actions occurring in proximity to each other do not mean they are linked. It's entirely possible the crime wasn't known about until after someone was asked for money.

This is part of the problem. People are stuck in the "if there's smoke, there's fire" mindset, and we aren't sure if we're just seeing fog.