Google is coming after its critics: we must remember monopolies can pose a threat to free speech
About 10 years ago, Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who coined the term network neutrality, made this prescient comment: "To love Google, you have to be a little bit of a monarchist, you have to have faith in the way people traditionally felt about the king."
Prof Wu was right. And now Google has established a pattern of lobbying and threatening to acquire power. It has reached a dangerous point common to many monarchs: the moment where it no longer wants to allow dissent.
This summer, a small team of well-respected researchers and journalists, the Open Markets team at the New America think tank (where I have been a fellow since 2014), dared to speak up about Google, in the mildest way. When the EU fined Google for preferring its own subsidiary companies to its rival companies in search results, it was natural that Open Markets, a group dedicated to studying and exposing distortions in markets, including monopoly power, would comment. The researchers put out a 150-word statement praising the EU's actions. They wrote: "By requiring that Google gives equal treatment to rival services instead of privileging its own, (the EU) is protecting the free flow of information and commerce upon which all democracies depend."
They called upon the Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice and state attorneys general to apply the traditional American monopoly law, which would require separate ownership of products and services and the networks that sell products and services.
Google has been funding New America for years at high levels. Within 24 hours of the statement going live, Google representatives called New America's leadership expressing their displeasure. Two planned hires for the Open Markets team suddenly were cancelled. Three days later, the head of the Open Markets team, the accomplished journalist Barry Lynn, received a letter from the head of the think tank, demanding the entire team leave New America. The reason? The statement praising the EU's decision against Google was, according to New America President Anne-Marie Slaughter, "imperilling the institution". (As of this writing, Ms Slaughter has denounced the story as false, claiming Lynn was dismissed for failures of "openness" and "collegiality").
When Google was founded in 1998, it famously committed itself to the motto: "Don't be evil." It appears that Google may have lost sight of what being evil means, in the way most monarchs do: once you reach a pinnacle of power, you start to believe that any threats to your authority are themselves villainous and that you are entitled to shut down dissent. As Lord Acton famously said: "Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality." Those with too much power cannot help but be evil. Google, the company dedicated to free expression, has chosen to silence opposition, apparently without any sense of irony.
Google did not always operate this way in relation to think tanks, even those it funded. The head of Google's parent company Eric Schmidt served on the board of New America starting in 2000, and was chairman from 2008 through to May 2016. The Open Markets institute has long studied excessive corporate power and argued for the importance of anti-monopoly laws. It was not previously punished for its work. But in recent years, Google has become greedy about owning not just search capacities, video and maps, but also the shape of public discourse. As the 'Wall Street Journal' recently reported, Google has recruited and cultivated law professors who support its views.
And as the 'New York Times' reported, it has become invested in building the curriculum for public schools, and has created political strategy to get schools to adopt its products.
This year, Google is on track to spend more money than any company in America on lobbying. In 2015, it was the third-biggest corporate spender, paying more than Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin or the Koch brothers on lobbying. Much of what it is spending its money on has nothing to do with technical details regarding its search engine and everything to do with using its power in its search engine to shut out some competitors and build power over others.
It is time to call out Google for what it is: a monopolist in search, video, maps and browser, and a thin-skinned tyrant when it comes to ideas.
The imperial overreach of Google in trying to shut down a group of five researchers proves the point that the initial release from Open Markets was trying to make: when companies get too much power, they become a threat to democratic free speech and to the liberty of citizens at large.
In 1948, in the Supreme Court case US v Columbia Steel Co, Justice William Douglas said the traditional philosophy of American antitrust law is "all power tends to develop into a government in itself. Power that controls the economy...should be scattered into many hands so that the fortunes of the people will not be dependent on the whim or caprice, the political prejudices, the emotional stability of a few self-appointed men".
Google is forming into a government of itself, and it seems incapable of even seeing its own overreach.
We, as citizens, must respond in two ways. First, support the brave researchers and journalists who stand up to overreaching power; and second, support traditional anti-monopoly laws that will allow us to have great, innovative companies - but not allow them to govern us.
Google's actions forced the Open Markets team to leave New America. But they did not succeed in silencing it entirely. Open Markets will continue on as a separate organisation, which I will chair. Its work exposing corporate monopolies and advocating for regulation is more important than ever. Google shows us why.
Zephyr Teachout is an associate professor of law at Fordham University. (© Washington Post)
Google responds: "We support hundreds of organisations that promote a free and open Internet, greater access to information, and increased opportunity. We don't agree with every group 100% of the time, and while we sometimes respectfully disagree, we respect each group's independence, personnel decisions, and policy perspectives." Riva Sciuto, Google spokesperson