Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand:<p>&gt; Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding.<p>&gt; The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third parties with limited restrictions, a position that is in line with technology companies that profit handsomely from such sales, but not so popular with consumers.<p>I guess &quot;Privacy Advocacy Groups&quot; does not equal &quot;Pro-Privacy Advocacy Groups&quot;.

This article accentuates the need to always look for the source of the funding when it comes to non-profits, think tanks, and &quot;public interest&quot; groups. Unfortunately, the goals of these groups are not always as transparent as their names would have you believe.

There should be scare quotes around Privacy Advocacy Groups.<p>All of the listed think tanks are for sale. EPIC, an actual privacy advocacy group, is not.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Electronic_Privacy_Information...</a>

Many, if not most, of the &quot;consumer advocacy&quot; groups are completely fake. They&#x27;re astroturf groups that are owned by various industries. Here&#x27;s a small selection of the ones owned by big oil:<p>California Drivers Alliance<p>Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy<p>Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions<p>The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition<p>Friends of Science

The EFF is clean. I think we&#x27;re seeing employee matches for that one.

Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to myself <i>&quot;hmmm, that&#x27;s weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy privacy, why would they be donating to things that try to preserve it?&quot;</i><p>Now it makes perfect sense.

Even if the privacy advocates are completely incorruptible, FB and Google still have a devious motivation when they try frame the debate about their companies around Privacy.<p>Privacy is important, but the monopolistic&#x2F;oligarchic control these businesses exert over their peers and the people of our countries is the real issue.<p>Nothing would make these companies happier than if we argued about privacy for the next 100 years.

also Google spends loads of money on ads in actual papers (definitely catering to an older and more privacy-interested clientele), for example urging people to take privacy into their own hands, by leading them here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;g.co&#x2F;privacycheckup" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;g.co&#x2F;privacycheckup</a> .<p>I wonder how many of the targets take the bait and &quot;sign up for privacy&quot; just to never sign out again, giving Google official approval for their data collection mechanics...<p>I&#x27;m coming more and more to the conclusion that a wide array of problems (from privacy to creating a sustainable economy) might just be served best by heavily regulating the whole advertising sector (starting from banning individualized ads to enforcing quotas on ad-spending&#x2F;marketing in all other industries)

Not exactly the same topic but similar - reminded me of how Google also donates not a small amount to Mozilla, to the point where Mozilla’s survival seems to be quite dependent on Google’s generosity.

Imagine if companies like Facebook and Google were taxed properly and we didn&#x27;t have to rely on their donations to fuel public policy!

Are we sure this is not donation match?

I would be surprised if they didn&#x27;t. They want to control the narrative of privacy advocacy in a way that best suits them.

controlled opposition is ineffective opposition

It&#x27;s a scientific fact that donations influence behavior. It is impossible for these organizations to remain unbiased in their approach to privacy when they take these contributions.

Doesn&#x27;t sound like something that they would advocate for though. FB &amp; G want your data to make money, and government wants their data to spy on you. Or is this a smokescreen

I think it&#x27;s the thing in most areas with public and NGO advocacy groups. Although the groups are officially non-profits, they are often very profitable for its employees. Local Greenpeace branch essentially takes protection money from various developer and mining companies to look other way (at those that don&#x27;t &quot;sponsor&quot; them) and use the money for bird conservation activities etc. in other areas.<p>If you think about it, it&#x27;s not even that bad. No one else really cares much about the companies&#x27; exploits and the money is at the end at least partially used for praiseworthy goals. And wheel of market keeps spinning...

Butcher is donating money to the farmer to raise the animals !

&gt; Google and Facebook want a federal privacy law, as long as it doesn’t disrupt their data collection and advertising empires, critics say.<p>Impossible. That sentence literally contradicts itself. The real question is why we allow companies to be non profit, yet be shills for the like of Google and Facebook while pretending they are doing a public service. A company cannot be fully focused on privacy and take money from Google, fb, etc. Even Mozilla can&#x27;t fully pull that off although they come pretty close.

&quot;Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.&quot;<p>Edit: A closer reading seems to indicate these groups may not be enemies.

It&#x27;s like the Roman Empire funding the &quot;People&#x27;s Front of Judea&quot; to discredit the &quot;Judean People&#x27;s Front&quot;, very similar to Putin&#x27;s tactics in Russia.

Now they can own privacy advocacy groups... great!

The actual title, &quot;Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Federal Privacy Debate&quot; is much clearer

Very misleading title!