References
- Abdalla, M. and Abdalla, M., 2020. The grey hoodie project: Big Tobacco, Big Tech, and the threat on academic integrity. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.13676
- Access Now, 2020. Access now defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world. Here’s how. https://www.accessnow.org/about-us/
- Adams, P.J., 2007. Assessing whether to receive funding support from tobacco, alcohol, gambling and other dangerous consumption industries. Addiction, 102, 1027–1033.
- Ahn, C. E. (2007). “Democratizing American Philanthropy.” In INCITE! (Ed.). The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (pp.63-76). Durham and London: Duke University Press.
- Akins, B.W., 2017. State of confusion: A non-profit’s right to withhold donor information from state regulators. Southern California interdisciplinary law journal, 26, 427.
- Amarante, E.F., 2018. The perils of philanthrocapitalism. Maryland Law review, 78 (1), 1–72.
- Ash, E., Chen, D.L., and Naidu, S., 2020. Ideas have consequences: impact of law and economics on American justice. https://elliottash.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ash-chen-naidu-2020-04-17.pdf
- Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), 2020. https://www.acnc.gov.au/
- Barros, A. and Taylor, S., 2018. Think tanks, business and civil society: The ethics of promoting pro-corporate ideologies. Journal of business ethics, 162, 1–13.
- Bishop, M. and Green, M., 2008. Philanthrocapitalism: How the rich can save the world. Bloomsbury: Bloomsbury University Press.
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2020a. Who we are: foundation FAQ. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Foundation-FAQ
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2020b. Who we are: letter from Bill and Melinda Gates. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Letter-from-Bill-and-Melinda-Gates
- Bose, N. and Shepardson, D., 2020. More tech executives than tech critics on Biden’s transition team. Reuters, 11 November. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-biden-tech/more-tech-executives-than-tech-critics-on-bidens-transition-team-idUSKBN27R054.
- Brandt, A., 2012. Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. American journal of public health, 102 (1), 63–71.
- Brammer, S. and Millington, A., 2005. Corporate reputation and philanthropy: an empirical analysis. Journal of business ethics, 61, 29–44.
- Brody, E., 2012. Sunshine and shadows on charity governance: public disclosure as a regulatory tool. Florida tax review, 12, 183.
- Campaign for Accountability, 2017. Google Academics Inc. Tech Transparency Project. https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/google-academics-inc
- Capps, B.J. and van der Eijk, Y., 2014. The tobacco industry, researchers, and ethical access to UK Biobank: using the public interest and public good. American journal of public health, 104 (10), 1833–1839.
- Centre for Democracy and Technology (CDT), 2020. Who we are. https://cdt.org/who-we-are/
- Centre for Responsive Politics, 2020a. Our vision and mission: inform, empower and advocate. https://www.opensecrets.org/about/
- Centre for Responsive Politics, 2020b. Microsoft corp. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/summary?id=D000000115.
- Centre for Responsive Politics, 2020c. Alphabet Inc. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/alphabet-inc/summary?id=d000067823
- Centre for Responsive Politics, 2020d. Facebook Inc. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/facebook-inc/summary?id=D000033563
- Centre for Responsive Politics, 2020e. Amazon.com. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/amazon-com/summary?id=D000023883
- Centre for Responsive Politics. 2020f. Apple Inc. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/summary?id=D000021754
- Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), 2020. About us. https://chanzuckerberg.com/about/our-approach/
- Chapman, L., 2019. Palantir dropped by Berkeley Privacy Conference after complaints. Bloomberg, 6 June. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-05/palantir-dropped-by-berkeley-privacy-conference-after-complaints
- Clément, D., 2019. How the state shaped the nonprofit sector: public funding in British Columbia. Canadian Review of sociology, 56 (3), 299–328.
- Cortis, N., 2017. Access to philanthropic and commercial income among nonprofit community service organisations. Voluntas, 28, 798–821.
- Crespo, M. and Dridi, H., 2007. Intensification of university-industry relationships and its impact on academic research. Higher education, 54, 61–84.
- Digital Freedom Fund (DFF), 2019. Resources. https://digitalfreedomfund.org/support/resources-page/
- Electronic Frontiers Australia, 2016. 2016 annual report. https://www.efa.org.au/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/EFA-2016-Annual-Report.pdf
- Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), 2018. Annual general meeting report - from the chair. https://www.efa.org.au/main/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Electronic-Frontiers-Australia-2018-AGM-Report.pdf
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 2020. About EFF. https://www.eff.org/about
- Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC), 2020. About EPIC. https://epic.org/#
- Erman, E., 2018. The political legitimacy of global governance and the proper role of civil society actors. Res publica, 24, 133–155.
- European Digital Rights (EDRi), 2018. Funding policy. https://edri.org/fundraising-policy/
- Fisch, E.L., 1953. The cy pres doctrine and changing philosophies. Michigan Law review, 51 (3), 375–388.
- Funding Matters, 2018. Open letter. https://fundingmatters.tech/
- Fyall, R., 2016. The power of nonprofits: mechanisms for nonprofit policy influence. Public administration review, 76 (6), 938–948.
- Ghaffary, S., 2019. The world’s biggest women’s tech conference just dropped Palantir as a sponsor. Vox, 28 Aug. https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/28/20837365/anita-b-grace-hopper-palantir-sponsor-worlds-biggest-womens-tech-conference-dropped
- Google.org, 2020. Our Approach. https://www.google.org/our-approach/
- Haber, M., 2019. The new activist non-profits: four models breaking from the non-profit industrial complex. University of Miami Law review, 73, 863–954.
- Hao, K., 2020a. A leading AI ethics researcher says she’s been fired from Google. MIT Technology Review, 3 Dec. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/03/1013065/google-ai-ethics-lead-timnit-gebru-fired/
- Hao, K., 2020b. We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says. MIT Technology Review, 4 Dec. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-ai-ethics-research-paper-forced-out-timnit-gebru/
- Hatfield, P., 2018. How helpful are charity watchdog ratings? Journal of accounting and finance, 18, 155–166.
- Hendlin, Y.H., et al., 2019. Financial conflicts of interest and stance on tobacco harm reduction: a systematic review. American journal of public health, 109 (7), e1–e8.
- Hondora, T., 2018. Civil society organisations’ role in the development of international law through strategic litigation in challenging times. Australian international law journal, 25, 115–136.
- IAPP, 2018. Privacy advocates protest Palantir’s sponsorship of the Amsterdam Privacy Conference. 24 Sep. IAPP. https://iapp.org/news/a/privacy-advocates-protest-palantirs-sponsorship-of-the-amsterdam-privacy-conference/
- INCITE, ed., 2007. The revolution will not be funded: beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
- Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 2020. Public disclosure and availability of exempt organizations returns and applications: contributors’ identities not subject to disclosure. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/public-disclosure-and-availability-of-exempt-organizations-returns-and-applications-contributors-identities-not-subject-to-disclosure
- Isar, Y.R., 2010. Civil society and culture. In: H K. Anheir and S. Toepler, eds. International encyclopedia of civil society. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93996-4_742
- Krumsiek, B., 2003. Socially responsible high tech companies: emerging issues. Journal of business ethics, 43, 179–187.
- Landman, A. and Glantz, S.A., 2009. Tobacco industry efforts to undermine policy-relevant research. American journal of Public health, 99 (1), 45–58.
- Lipton, E., 2015. Food industry enlisted academics in G.M.O. Lobbying war, emails show. New York Times, 5 Sep. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html
- Lomba, N. and Evas, T., 2020. European Parliamentary research service, ‘Digital services act: European added value assessment’ PE 654.180.
- Maclean, M., et al., 2021. Elite philanthropy in the United States and United Kingdom in the new age of inequalities. International journal of management reviews, 23 (3), 1–23.
- Manning, P., Baker, N., and Stokes, P., 2020. The ethical challenge of big tech’s “disruptive philanthropy”. International studies of management and organization, doi:10.1080/00208825.2020.1811522
- Marechal, N., 2017. Those reports on Google funding academic research may be 99% nonsense - but we should talk about that 1%. https://medium.com/@nathaliemarechal/those-reports-on-google-funding-academic-research-may-be-99-nonsense-but-we-should-talk-about-16917089cb77.
- Mehta, N. and Assadpour, E., 2017. The Chan-Zuckerberg biohub: modern philanthrocapitalism through a critical lens. The journal of global health, 11 (11), 36–44.
- Miller, L., 2017. Responding to the “Campaign for Accountability” report on academic research. Google. https://www.blog.google/topics/public-policy/responding-campaign-accountability-report-academic-research/
- Mintz, S., Savage, A., and Carter, R., 2010. Commercialism and universities: an ethical analysis. Journal of academic ethics, 8 (1), 1–19.
- Mullins, B. and Nicas, J. 2017. Paying professors: inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign. Wall Street Journal, July, 14.
- Nhan, J. and Carrol, A., 2012. The offline defense of the internet: an examination of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. SMU science and technology law review, 15 (3), 389–401.
- Ochigame, R., 2019. The invention of “ethical AI”: how big tech manipulates academia to avoid regulation. The Intercept, 21 Dec. https://theintercept.com/2019/12/20/mit-ethical-ai-artificial-intelligence/
- Palantir, 2020. Palantir is not a data company (Palantir Explained, #1). https://medium.com/palantir/palantir-is-not-a-data-company-palantir-explained-1-a6fcf8b3e4cb
- Phan, T., et al., 2021. Economies of virtue: the circulation of ‘ethics’ in Big Tech. Science as culture. doi:10.1080/09505431.2021.1990875
- Public Citizen, 2021. Big Tech, Big Cash: Washington’s new power players. https://mkus3lurbh3lbztg254fzode-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Big-Tech-Big-Cash-Washingtons-New-Power-Players.pdf
- Privacy International, 2020. Financials. https://privacyinternational.org/about/financals
- Privett, N. and Erhun, F., 2011. Efficient funding: auditing in the nonprofit sector. Manufacturing & service operations management, 13 (4), 471–488.
- Reiser, D.B., 2017. Disruptive philanthropy: Zuckerberg, the limited liability company, and the millionaire next door. Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series. http://ssrn.com/abstract=3049021
- Rondinella, T., Segre, E., and Zola, D., 2017. Participative processes for measuring progress: deliberation, consultation and the role of civil society. Social indicators research, 130, 959–982.
- Rotenberg, M. and Jacobs, D., 2016. Enforcing privacy rights: class action Litigation and the challenge of cy pres. In: David Wright and Paul de Hert, eds. Enforcing privacy: regulatory, legal and technical approaches. Springer, 307–335.
- Rushe, D., 2017. Google-funded thinktank fired scholar over criticism of tech firm. The Guardian, 31 Aug. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/30/new-america-foundation-google-funding-firings
- Rutzen, D., 2015. Civil society under assault. Journal of democracy, 26 (4), 28–39.
- Shepherd, S.R., 1972. Damage distribution in class actions: The cy pres remedy. The University of Chicago Law review, 39 (2), 448.
- Steinberg, G. and Wertman, B., 2018. Value clash: civil society, foreign funding, and national sovereignty. Global governance, 24 (1), 1–10.
- Striphas, T., 2015. Algorithmic culture. European journal of cultural studies, 18 (4-5), 395–412.
- Suarez, D.F., 2011. Collaboration and professionalization: the contours of public sector funding for nonprofit organizations. Journal of public administration research and theory, 21, 307–326.
- Turner, F., 2006. From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the whole earth network, and the rise of digital utopianism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Van der Eijk, Y., Bero, L.A., and Malone, R.E., 2019. Philip morris international-funded ‘foundation for a smoke-free world’: analysing its claims of independence. Tobacco control, 28, 712–718.
- Viljoen, S., Goldenfein, J., and McGuigan, L., 2021. Design choices: mechanism design and platform capitalism. Big data & society, 8 (2). doi:10.1177/20539517211034312.
- Volkova, I., 2017. Does charitable giving have a right to privacy? Examining centre for competitive politics v Kamala D Harris through the lens of charity regulators. Western Michigan University Cooley Law Journal, 18, 335–368.
- Wakabayashi, D., 2020. Big Tech funds a think tank pushing for fewer rules. For big tech. New York Times, 24 July. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/technology/global-antitrust-institute-google-amazon-qualcomm.html
- Williams, O., 2019. How big tech funds the debate on AI ethics. NewStatesman, 6 June. https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/technology/2019/06/how-big-tech-funds-debate-ai-ethics
- Yach, D. and Bialous, S.A., 2001. Junking science to promote tobacco. American journal of public health, 91 (11), 1745–1748.
- Youman, M., 1996. The Electronic Frontier Foundation: a sojourn in Washington. LBJ Journal of public affairs, 8, 19–25.
- Zuboff, S., 2019. The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for the future at the new frontier of power. New York, NY: Public Affairs.