Yes, Google Uses Its Power to Quash Ideas It Doesn’t Like—I Know Because It Happened to Me [Updated]The story in the New York Times this week was unsettling: The New America Foundation, a major think tank, was getting rid of one of its teams of scholars, the Open Markets group. New America had warned its leader Barry Lynn that he was “imperiling the institution,” the Times reported, after he and his group had repeatedly criticized Google, a major funder of the think tank, for its market dominance. The criticism of Google had culminated in Lynn posting a statement to the think tank’s website “applauding” the European Commission’s decision to slap the company with a record- breaking $2. That post was briefly taken down, then republished. Soon afterward, Anne- Marie Slaughter, the head of New America, told Lynn that his group had to leave the foundation for failing to abide by “institutional norms of transparency and collegiality.”Google denied any role in Lynn’s firing, and Slaughter tweeted that the “facts are largely right, but quotes are taken way out of context and interpretation is wrong.” Despite the conflicting story lines, the underlying premise felt familiar to me: Six years ago, I was pressured to unpublish a critical piece about Google’s monopolistic practices after the company got upset about it.

In my case, the post stayed unpublished. I was working for Forbes at the time, and was new to my job. In addition to writing and reporting, I helped run social media there, so I got pulled into a meeting with Google salespeople about Google’s then- new social network, Plus.

The Google salespeople were encouraging Forbes to add Plus’s “+1" social buttons to articles on the site, alongside the Facebook Like button and the Reddit share button. They said it was important to do because the Plus recommendations would be a factor in search results—a crucial source of traffic to publishers. This sounded like a news story to me. Google’s dominance in search and news give it tremendous power over publishers. By tying search results to the use of Plus, Google was using that muscle to force people to promote its social network. I asked the Google people if I understood correctly: If a publisher didn’t put a +1 button on the page, its search results would suffer? The answer was yes.

After the meeting, I approached Google’s public relations team as a reporter, told them I’d been in the meeting, and asked if I understood correctly. The press office confirmed it, though they preferred to say the Plus button “influences the ranking.” They didn’t deny what their sales people told me: If you don’t feature the +1 button, your stories will be harder to find with Google. With that, I published a story headlined, “Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers,” that included bits of conversation from the meeting. The Google guys explained how the new recommendation system will be a factor in search. Universally, or just among Google Plus friends?” I asked. Universal’ was the answer.

So if Forbes doesn’t put +1 buttons on its pages, it will suffer in search rankings?” I asked. Google guy says he wouldn’t phrase it that way, but basically yes.(An internet marketing group scraped the story after it was published and a version can still be found here.)Google promptly flipped out. This was in 2. 01. Google never challenged the accuracy of the reporting. Instead, a Google spokesperson told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non- disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. I had signed no such agreement, hadn’t been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified myself as a journalist.) It escalated quickly from there.

The latest Amy Schumer news with more on Inside Amy Schumer, upcoming film Barbie plus boyfriend, Instagram and Twitter updates and net worth.

I was told by my higher- ups at Forbes that Google representatives called them saying that the article was problematic and had to come down. The implication was that it might have consequences for Forbes, a troubling possibility given how much traffic came through Google searches and Google News. Watch Blood Brothers Megavideo. I thought it was an important story, but I didn’t want to cause problems for my employer. And if the other participants in the meeting had in fact been covered by an NDA, I could understand why Google would object to the story.

MSNBC Anchor Caught in Profanity-Laced Rant — Click Through to Watch the Video. Sep 21, 2017 • Post A Comment. Nine people are dead, including the suspected gunman, and a 10th is hospitalized after a gunman opened fire at an NFL watch party over the weekend in Plano, Texas. Charlie Pierce on all this ESPN nonsense and newspapering and what not is so fantastic and I’m bitter we didn’t run it. Go check it out. [SI].

Given that I’d gone to the Google PR team before publishing, and it was already out in the world, I felt it made more sense to keep the story up. Ultimately, though, after continued pressure from my bosses, I took the piece down—a decision I will always regret. Forbes declined comment about this. But the most disturbing part of the experience was what came next: Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all. As I recall it—and although it has been six years, this episode was seared into my memory—a cached version remained shortly after the post was unpublished, but it was soon scrubbed from Google search results.

That was unusual; websites captured by Google’s crawler did not tend to vanish that quickly. And unpublished stories still tend to show up in search results as a headline. Scraped versions could still be found, but the traces of my original story vanished. It’s possible that Forbes, and not Google, was responsible for scrubbing the cache, but I frankly doubt that anyone at Forbes had the technical know- how to do it, as other articles deleted from the site tend to remain available through Google. Deliberately manipulating search results to eliminate references to a story that Google doesn’t like would be an extraordinary, almost dystopian abuse of the company’s power over information on the internet. I don’t have any hard evidence to prove that that’s what Google did in this instance, but it’s part of why this episode has haunted me for years: The story Google didn’t want people to read swiftly became impossible to find through Google. Google wouldn’t address whether it deliberately deep- sixed search results related to the story.

Asked to comment, a Google spokesperson sent a statement saying that Forbes removed the story because it was “not reported responsibly,” an apparent reference to the claim that the meeting was covered by a non- disclosure agreement. Again, I identified myself as a journalist and signed no such agreement before attending. People who paid close attention to the search industry noticed the piece’s disappearance and wroteaboutit, wondering why it disappeared. Those pieces, at least, are still findable today. As for how effective the strategy was, Google’s dominance in other industries didn’t really pan out for Plus. Six years later, the social network is a ghost town and Google has basically given up on it. But back when Google still thought it could compete with Facebook on social, it was willing to play hardball to promote the network.

Google started out as a company dedicated to ensuring the best access to information possible, but as it’s grown into one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world, its priorities have changed. Even as it fights against ordinary people who want their personal histories removed from the web, the company has an incentive to suppress information about itself. Google said it never urged New America to fire Lynn and his team. But an entity as powerful as Google doesn’t have to issue ultimatums. It can just nudge organizations and get them to act as it wants, given the influence it wields.

Lynn and the rest of the team that left New America Foundation plan to establish a new nonprofit to continue their work. For now, they’ve launched a website called “Citizens Against Monopoly” that tells their story. It says that “Google’s attempts to shut down think tanks, journalists, and public interest advocates researching and writing about the dangers of concentrated private power must end.”It’s safe to say they won’t be receiving funding from Google.

Update, September 1, 1: 5. Yesterday, we asked Google’s communications team for a response to this story.

Amy Schumer clarifies her pay gripe (opinion)Story highlights. Story in Variety said Amy Schumer got more pay after she pointed out to Netflix it was paying Chappelle and Rock more. Peggy Drexler: Schumer makes key point that a variety of factors determine pay, not always simply gender parity. Peggy Drexler is the author of "Our Fathers, Ourselves: Daughters, Fathers, and the Changing American Family" and "Raising Boys Without Men." The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. CNN)This week, Amy Schumer issued what may have been one of the best comebacks of her career. Variety reported the actress and comedian had negotiated higher pay for a Netflix gig after learning that colleagues Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle were each earning some $9 million more for similar appearances. Social media weighed in, of course, with some blasting her as not deserving it anyway.

And then Schumer gave the naysayers what they thought they'd never get from her: agreement. I don't believe I deserve equal pay to Chris and Dave," she wrote in an Instagram post Wednesday. They are legends and 2 of the greatest comics of all time." Her hashtags further echoed criticisms that have been lobbed at her over the years: "#fat #stealsjokes." She is pictured posing wearing only underpants; she holds a dog wearing a stuffed hot dog to cover her top.

It was perhaps one of the more teachable moments we've had in the ongoing conversation about equal pay. For one thing, Schumer, as a celebrity, has a wide reach: 6. Instagram followers. For another, she used humor to address a very serious topic, but she didn't make light of it.

She did not get defensive. She made it clear that she, yes, did ask for more money and that there was nothing wrong with that. She pointed out that she works hard, regularly sells out arenas ("something a female comic has never done"), and does her best every night. She didn't just ask for a boost in pay for equal pay's sake. Watch Pain &Amp; Gain Online Fandango.

But she also asserted that she did not, in fact, ask Netflix to match the salaries given to the men. It's an important clarification: Equal pay doesn't mean that men and women should be paid the same, across the board, all the time. Certainly, one man may not earn the same as another man in the same position, and there's no gender inequality there. A point often overlooked in discussions about equal pay is that there can be a range of factors that will determine any person's salary — including, for the employee, the ability, desire, and opportunity to negotiate (as Schumer did in this case). And for the prospective employer, there is the experience of the potential hire to consider, how in- demand he or she is, and the amount of work/ effort/ travel/ rearranging/ and whatever else may be required to take and complete a job. Equal pay means individuals should not be penalized — or rewarded — simply for their gender or skin color.

The original Variety headline that broke the story of Schumer's purported request to Netflix was likely meant to be incendiary: "Women, Minorities on TV Still Making Less Than White Men." While that appears to be true, the takeaway on this issue shouldn't be that gender and race are the only factors separating any one white man's salary from any one woman or minority worker's salary. It's also noteworthy that Variety never exactly reported that Schumer had asked that her pay match that of Rock and Chappelle; that was a reader assumption. Naturally, those readers were lightning quick to shoot her down, with tweets like, "Amy Schumer asking for the same pay as Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock is without a doubt the funniest thing she's ever said," and that special ire reserved for women who ask for more than others think they should.

By standing up for herself, Schumer effectively sent the message to millions of people that yes, women deserve more — and she, in particular deserved it — while also encouraging continued openness about money and what we, and others, are earning. Gender equality, after all, is best achieved when people are willing to talk about it, and women shouldn't be afraid to ask around to find out how much their co- workers make.

They also shouldn't be afraid to ask for more money if they feel they should get it. Schumer felt she did and, in agreeing to her request, her employers validated both her righteous request and the truth of her stature.

Victories are becoming more common in this area, even as the fight is not over. But the biggest victory will come when salary is viewed simply as a true reflection of the value of the individual — the talent, ethic, drive and performance — assessed without penalty, or preference, for skin color or gender.