Tech company layoffs and hiring freeze in 2022

And through a little-publicized program, Google is carefully expanding its soft power by building relationships with progressives of color.

Documents seen by the protocol reveal that Google has spent years fostering its next-generation learning community, a network of people of color interested in tech politics. Many of the participants have influential perks in politics or culture — even as Google drives them to its campuses, seeks to persuade them to see issues like Section 230 reform and watch them reach out to some of the same lawmakers who turned up the heat on Google.

Next-generation participants who spoke with Protocol portrayed the program as a vital link between people of color, who are underrepresented in tech politics, and said it provides a forum for bringing criticism to the tech giant. But the program also echoes one of Google’s most effective and under-discussed tactics in Washington: its long history of winning friends over in the tech policy community even when it’s not trying to sway people. Part of that effort is polishing his image in the eyes of opponents at some point without asking them to become supporters – but also without always addressing their concerns quickly.

Meetings on the hill

The Next Generation software appears to date back to 2016, when it was created by a senior Googler, Chanelle Hardy. According to her LinkedIn profile, Hardy has previously held prominent positions on the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, in congressional offices and with major human rights and civil rights groups. This likely made her a natural fit to oversee the company’s policy partnerships when she joined that year.

In an invitation to attend an event hosted by the program in 2021, she wrote that the program is designed to “inform Next Gens on key topics in technology policy and racial justice.” Hardy also set Section 230, Content Oversight, Intellectual Property Policy and the Future of Work as “key focus areas”. The invitation and list of participants were shared exclusively with Protocol by the Tech Transparency Project, an ethics watchdog that has conducted extensive research on Big Tech’s networks of influence, including Next Gen.

TTP research reveals that while participants focused on the program’s networking opportunities, Google kept tabs close on the growing voices of next-generation participants in the policy conversation. For example, one presentation, posted by someone who has done the branding for Google, referred to extensive meetings with policy makers by next-generation participants, appearances at panel discussions focused on technology issues and more.

Apparently members of Congress addressed the group on certain occasions, but Google was adamant that the presentation, which cited more than 350 meetings with congressional offices and policymakers, included incorrect numbers for the placeholders. The company also said the brochure detailed outreach by next-generation participants as part of their own work and not at Google’s request.

“We do not ask next-generation participants to take political positions, nor do we provide them with advocacy material,” said Google spokesperson José Castañeda. “We welcome discussion, debate, and disagreement and do not in any way influence advocacy efforts.”

The company did not dispute the presentation’s assertion that Next Generation members met with Representatives Karen Bass, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Liu, and Sheila Jackson Lee focusing on “the work of creative people of color, strengthening diverse voices, and helping communities of color navigate the future of work.” According to the presentation, those meetings occurred in 2020 prior to Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s testimony before the House Committee to Investigate Big Tech’s competitive practices. The tweets also show Representatives Jimmy Gomez and Tony Cardenas addressing the group in 2019.

Castaneda said Google is proud of the programme, which facilitates meetings “with experts from civil society and the technology industry to engage on a range of policy topics.”

Spokespersons for Bass, Liu and Jackson Lee did not respond to questions about the meetings. Jayapal spokeswoman Siham Zniber said her office was “not aware of these meetings/talks”. Jayapal, the only lawmaker among the four actually serving on the panel that interviewed Pichai, asked specific questions about him during the marathon session. Liu and Bass serve on a committee focused on intellectual property.

Building alliances

Group meetings, which can be joined for free, happen about two or four times a year, according to the participants. In addition to hot technical topics such as Section 230, intellectual property and antitrust, discussions have included mass incarceration, privacy, disinformation, immigration and more.

Prior to COVID-19, Google paid the bill for travel — mostly to Washington, D.C., but also to other Google subsidiaries. The group met with company officials, and Next Gen also appears to have allowed participants to attend conferences, summits, and other receptions in the capital.

Several participants said that networking was the biggest benefit to Next Gen, emphasizing that participants talk to each other even outside of Google’s purview. They also lamented the lack of other spaces they found to work with other people of color interested in promoting racial justice through technology.

According to materials obtained by TTP, the program has attracted some high-profile names, not only from government and politics but also from academia, civil rights, advocacy, media, philanthropy, think tanks, and the arts. Alencia Johnson – a former senior adviser to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign who previously held senior positions on Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bid for the White House, Planned Parenthood and President Obama’s re-election – is one of the participants. So is Alyssa Valentine, Special Counsel to Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Jeffrey Starks, and April Raine, creator of the #OscarsSoWhite campaign.

“It’s a great engagement that I think we need more of — and we need to create more ways for people of color to influence this kind of policy making,” said co-author Chris Lewis, the nonprofit’s Head of Public Knowledge for Technology Policy, adding that through Next Gen he was able to Talking to entrepreneurs and artists with whom he “didn’t normally come into contact”.

Big companies have a long history of attracting influential outside voices like Lewis, a former Federal Communications Commission employee and an aide to Senator Ted Kennedy, sometimes through commitments to important issues like diversity, equity and inclusion.

Among many in Washington, Google is seen as having a complex web of relationships, in part because the company believes it benefits from the support of academics and activists even when it asks no support group in return.

“What they do, frankly, is go out and make friends,” said Steve Billett, a former AT&T lobbyist who is now a professor at Notre Dame. He added that he had “no doubt” that the program could help improve Google’s standing among participants and perhaps even mute criticism.

Billett said the policy process shouldn’t just center around lobbying expenditures, campaign contributions, and meetings with government officials: it should also take into account how companies maintain relationships with all kinds of groups.

“This is something smart companies have always done,” he said. “They at least put themselves in a place where they can discuss and sit at the table with the organizations active in their area, [that] They may be antagonists in some cases.”

Google, for example, has been eager to fund the work of legal economists and academics for years, even before recent antitrust problems, according to other reports from TTP. Many of those same scholars insisted that the money didn’t affect their subsequent defenses of the company or technology in general, but in the case of economists, they weren’t always upfront about their relationships, according to the Wall Street Journal. It also appears that Google is focusing money and attention on those who may be more ideologically inclined to support the company’s retreat from competition concerns.

Additionally, in 2017, Eric Schmidt, then the CEO of Alphabet, lobbied the head of a liberal think tank over single unit anti-tech statements, according to a New York Times report. Schmidt also previously funded the group and served as its president, and Google funded it. The dissenting researcher, competition expert Barry Lane, blamed those financial ties for his eventual dismissal.

In general, the company publicly supports a wide list of organizations in the policy conversation — from think tanks on the left and right to trade associations and local chambers of commerce — and has a pattern of doing so even when some are real thorns in the company’s side on some issues.

Interferences

Common Knowledge and Lewis in some ways summarize the relationship between Google and those you keep in the fold. The group has hit Google extensively over its competitive practices and has been a major force behind the push for antitrust legislation that could fundamentally reshape the company’s business. Google and Public Knowledge are fighting each other over this issue. But because the group often alignment With the company on Section 230 and intellectual property issues, it also appears to show the company’s willingness to forge alliances when possible.

“We are clear, and I am very clear with the donors, that they have no say in our positions,” Lewis said. He added that he was clear internally and to Google that he would not even participate in Next Gen if he felt he “doesn’t have an independent voice”.

It looks like Google wants to make sure that next-generation participants use their voice, especially in opinion pieces. A tweet from a participant, for example, showed a Next Generation session that taught editorial writing, and a Next Generation show that described the legislators’ meetings also indicated that participants were producing opinion pieces, academic papers, blog posts, media appearances, and social networks. Informational publications on technology policy.

Participants also said the company is not shy about explaining its positions during sessions, including issues such as Section 230 or competition, which represent some of the biggest weaknesses in the company’s policies and in which Google has a significant financial stake in the status quo.

Google Pay

Participants who spoke with Protocol insisted they did not feel pressured to accept Google’s views and said they had witnessed serious discussions and sometimes criticism of the company itself. Some participants explained that far from being a form of corporate indoctrination, Next Gen allows Google to listen directly to candid critics, including topics chosen by participants, whether the company’s handling of election integrity or antitrust.

“We are called upon to be open, honest and critical as appropriate,” said participant Joseph Getachew, director of the Media and Democracy Program at Common Cause. He noted that he had publicly contacted the company about electoral disinformation. “I have communicated directly with Googlers in the past to speak to them directly about the issues they are experiencing [Common Cause is] Work on it and push them to do more.”

There is no doubt that the concerns of the communities of color about Google have increased over the years. He has faced criticism that he has been slow to combat election-related disinformation, particularly on YouTube, and such disinformation has sometimes targeted black and Latino voters in particular. Mining of personal data at the heart of Google’s digital advertising may also allow advertisements of opportunities that can be targeted in discriminatory ways (some of which Google is now blocking). The company’s commitment to diversity and unbiased algorithm research took a hit in 2020 after it fired prominent AI researcher Timnit Gebru.

Although the next generation participants are not part of any explicit lobbying process, they acknowledge that Google has not necessarily been quick to address their concerns, and readily concedes that Google is a self-interested company and its work in Washington cannot be entirely altruistic.

In particular, Getachew said, the advantage of Next Gen for Google may lie more in getting a say in politics than ramping up diversity and inclusion.

He said, “I can picture them saying, ‘Well, we’re hosting this conference, this program, which has colorists as part of doing something.'” In my opinion, is that enough? Obviously not. There is a lot that Google can do to be fair from a political and operational point of view.”