I used to freelance for national magazines (this was years ago), so if my work was published in them, it was a fair assumption that I got paid from them.

Then you’re (still) shilling for those magazines, and whatever your opinions here in the comments, obviously they are simply a reflection of those national magazines, who paid you to espouse their opinions.

In the Internet years, I have written blogs (starting back in 1993-94). At that time I was working part-time for Apple and getting paid from them until they dropped OneNet and started to fund an alternative project, eWorld, instead.

So, if you ever wrote something about Apple, even if it’s negative, then obviously you only espouse that opinion because you were paid by Apple to do so. You were also paid by OneNet, so obviously you’re just parroting OneNet’s corporate press releases.

I have done consulting projects for various companies, and I used to write for ColoradoBiz magazine, eMileHigh, and Courtney Pulitizer’s CyberScene.

More people who pay you to post their opinions? Good Lord, is there anyone who you won’t take money from so you can espouse their opinions here??? You’re a total shill slut, I tell ya!

I started writing a music industry blog for Brands Plus Music.

“Music industry blog?” Don’t make me laugh! Obviously, you were really just shilling for Apple, ColoradoBiz, eMileHigh, and CyberScene. If you wrote anything in that blog, obviously you were just paid to regurgitate their press releases. It was simply an “astroturfing” blog, created for the sole purpose of pushing their agenda on the Internet.

My last big topic series for the blog was on the gift economy, which is how I stumbled on the P2P Foundation.

Wow! So a consortium of Colorado magazines, allied with Apple, are behind the P2P Foundation! I never knew that. Thanks for clearing that up! Now that it’s confirmed, I’m going to spread it far and wide, and especially on any blogs associated with the P2P Foundation.

…Now, let’s be clear here. This is obviously satirical, but it is in no way different than what the AC’s here are saying.

The fact is, you had much more of a relationship with those magazines than Mike ever had with Google. Mike has never “freelanced” for Google in any way. He has never done a consulting project for them. They have never paid Mike for anything he’s ever written on the Techdirt blog. They have never sponsored a conversation here.

Unlike Oracle (which Mike revealed upfront in the discussion itself). Or Sun, or AmEx, or IBM, or UPS (which Mike likewise disclosed upfront). You can see everyone who sponsored a conversation by going to The Insight Community Cases page. You’ll notice that Google is not among them.

I assume he has received money or perks from the company over the years

Your assumption would be wrong. Here’s what Floor64/Techdirt received over the years:

1. The non-profit CCIA, of which Google is one of a dozen members (and of which Oracle used to be a member), co-sponsored The Sky Is Rising report. (The other sponsor was Engine Advocacy, a political non-profit that represents startup tech companies, not “big players” like Google or Oracle.)

2. Mike said that years ago, when he (and others) were holding a roundtable discussion, Google donated space for that meeting. This would probably be around the time that you were freelancing for national magazines.

3. Like 99% of the Internet, Techdirt has AdSense.

That’s it. No more money, no more perks. That is the extent of Mike’s connection to Google.

So why are the AC’s harping on it?

One (likely) possibility is that they’re shills themselves. At least one AC posts exclusively during business hours, from a Washington DC IP address. Another revealed that he’s an IP lawyer by profession.

But it’s also likely that they’ve simply bought what a number of high-profile conspiracy theorists have claimed about Google. People like Rupert Murdoch, MPAA head Chris Dodd, or everyone who writes for the RIAA blog. People like copyright lawyer Chris Castle (the man behind Music Tech Policy), major-label artist David Lowerey (the man behind The Trichordist), or indie filmmaker Ellen Seidler (the woman behind popuppirates.com).

These are also the same types of people who actually believe Google orchestrated the SOPA/PIPA blackouts, solely because Google profits from piracy. The same ones who believe that Google controls the EFF, Demand Progress, the CDT, or any other non-profit that advocates for an open Internet. And now they’re trying to do the same thing with Techdirt.

So, why Google, and not (say) Microsoft’s Bing or adCenter? Simple: Microsoft generally shares the MPAA and RIAA view on IP protection. Google has an opposing viewpoint, and they actually spend almost as much in lobbying money as the MPAA and RIAA do, so they’re big enough to be a threat. If they can present Google as a “piracy apologist,” then tar and feather everyone who has ever been vaguely associated with them, then they’ll once again have a free reign in Washington.

At the very least, they’ll be able to demand that Google give them more money. Which they can then use to pressure all other tech companies into giving them more money.

And, sadly, you appear to be falling for it. For your own sake, I hope you change your mind. Especially since you like something called the “P2P Foundation,” which must be a piracy site, and deserves to be instantly shut down by the Government. Without the EFF, CDT, Demand Progress, etc. (all of which will be discounted as “piracy apologists” who are “shilling for Google”), then it’ll be much harder to stop things like this from happening.