The censorship was of the Microsoft and Google portions of the report. Removing 100 pages of a 150 page report for political reasons is for sure still censorship.
And if an organization funded a report, it is unethical to hide that information. It is absolutely standard to attach notices of non-endorsement after funding disclosures.
This is an irresponsible claim if not backed up with a citation.
Further, I happen to monitor corporate funding to nonprofits (including the EFF) and public reporting suggests EFF only received $7500 from Google in 2018 and $25K from Facebook.
Whereas Center for Democracy and Technology, which was founded by the former Executive Director of the EFF in 1994, received $430K and $500K, respectively.
“ Google gave the Electronic Frontier Foundation $75,000 in calendar year 2017, $15,500 in calendar year 2016, and $325,000 in calendar year 2015, according tax forms, annual reports, and interviews with the nonprofit.”
Add up all the money they’ve accepted from these types of companies over the last 10 years. They shouldn’t be accepting $1 from Google.
But that's the thing, its not correct. You stated the EFF has accepted millions from Facebook and Google, as in multiple millions of dollars. $478k is significantly less than multiple millions. Its over a million dollars away from being correct.
I didn’t specify a time frame or the specific companies. I’ve provided enough evidence to indicate this is true.
The larger point is also unequivocally proved: the EFF has massive conflicts of interest that it apparently thinks are fine, which makes it untrustworthy. If they accepted $100,000 from Google that would be just as much of a problem — it’s a huge amount of money. Extrapolating out from the sample data that’s easy to find, it does look like millions. If you want to conduct some in-depth research to prove that wrong please do, I’d be interested to see a full qualification for their horrible conflict of interest.
> I’ve provided enough evidence to indicate this is true.
Have you? You've provided evidence for less than half a million, yet you claim its at least $2M.
I do agree IMO they really shouldn't accept much money but you're claiming you've shared proof they've received multiple millions and yet you've only shared proof for less than half of that.
Yes, that amount in that time frame and from only those companies extrapolates out to millions over a larger time frame and with any companies in that category. Again, if anyone is really concerned they’re free to conduct detailed research. I feel extrapolating is reasonable enough to make a forum comment.
Showing that they've accepted a few hundred thousand is far short of showing they've accepted millions. For the facts presented all we know was there were only three years these companies made any donations to the EFF.
If I gave someone $1 today, $10 the next day, and $100 the day after, would you then assume at the end of the year I gave the person hundreds of millions of dollars? Clearly I'm increasing this by 10x every day, so obviously this should continue in perpituity, right? Or maybe these were three one-off things, and it would take further analysis to determine I only actually made these three contributions?
I don't know the EFF took millions from Facebook and Google. They might have! But the data given doesn't prove it, and extrapolating it is only a little less crazy than the extrapolation above. There's guesses, and there's facts.
“ Over the past years, EFF has taken millions in funds from Google and Facebook via straight donations and controversial court payouts that many see as under-the-radar contributions. Hell, Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s foundation gave EFF at least $1.2 million.” You can argue with that guy about his sources too. He’s also making an even bigger claim since I wasn’t limiting my assessment to those two companies.
I do not, although he might be willing to share it. I did, however, write an email to EFF requesting records that could shed some light on the full extent of their conflicts of interest. I'm not expecting them to reply with anything useful but I guess there's a chance.
Wikipedia on Shaw's admiration of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin:
"""
Shaw's admiration for Mussolini and Stalin demonstrated his growing belief that dictatorship was the only viable political arrangement. When the Nazi Party came to power in Germany in January 1933, Shaw described Hitler as "a very remarkable man, a very able man",[1] and professed himself proud to be the only writer in England who was "scrupulously polite and just to Hitler".[2] His principal admiration was for Stalin, whose regime he championed uncritically throughout the decade.[3] Shaw saw the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as a triumph for Stalin who, he said, now had Hitler under his thumb.[4]
"""
The entries of a matrix are eigenvalues of 1x1 minors, and clearly eigenvectors are a function of the entries.
That the result is a function of (n-1) minors is first-order information and would help clarify the default assumption that the result computes eigenvectors from the full Hermitian matrix's eigenvalues.
And if an organization funded a report, it is unethical to hide that information. It is absolutely standard to attach notices of non-endorsement after funding disclosures.