Live data from Hacker News

PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

pastebin.com

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#41
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has far more sensitive information on me than Facebook. Facebook only has publicly facing information, stuff that you've already shared with other people. Google has my searches, and what I've clicked on. And good luck trying to get them to forget those logs.

"Facebook only has publicly facing information, stuff that you've already shared with other people." Ummm, and maybe every site you ever visited whose owners display those funny "like" buttons.

The "like" button is for publicly sharing your interest in a web page.

And for tracking where I've been, Facebook is no worse than any other ad agency; that they show me that they're tracking me is no worse than DoubleClick's or Google Ads' tracking.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is kind of funny, comparing GOOG's privacy with Facebook's privacy.

Google has far more sensitive information on me than Facebook. Facebook only has publicly facing information, stuff that you've already shared with other people. Google has my searches, and what I've clicked on. And good luck trying to get them to forget those logs.

"Facebook only has publicly facing information, stuff that you've already shared with other people."

Stuff you've shared with other people != public information. That's the whole reason Facebook exists.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#43

Seems like a good time to revist Paul's essay "The Submarine:" PR is not dishonest. Not quite. In fact, the reason the best PR firms are so effective is precisely that they aren't dishonest. They give reporters genuinely valuable information. A good PR firm won't bug reporters just because the client tells them to; they've worked hard to build their credibility with reporters, and they don't want to destroy it by fee…

If I was the PR company for google I'd be pretty pleased with the 12 stories they have on the HN front page at the moment.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#45

This is pretty standard -- get anti-Google (and Microsoft, and Apple) pitches all the time. About the only thing that isn't standard is the fact that the PR firm won't say who their client is. That pretty much never happens (at least to me). So the fact that they won't say who it is makes it kinda interesting, but it could just be some nutjob somewhere who decided to spend his money on hiring a PR firm.

Was it you ms-redmond ?

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#46
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Facebook only has publicly facing information, stuff that you've already shared with other people." Ummm, and maybe every site you ever visited whose owners display those funny "like" buttons.

The "like" button is for publicly sharing your interest in a web page. And for tracking where I've been, Facebook is no worse than any other ad agency; that they show me that they're tracking me is no worse than DoubleClick's or Google Ads' tracking.

Facebook has a lot more than you're giving them credit for.

You're only counting data given to them directly, as if the things you tell Facebook are the only things there. They also have a lot of data based on what they infer from your behavior. The most visible aspect of that would be when they recommend people for you to friend.

And then there's all the data other people give them about you. Oh, sure, you can untag the photos or whatever, but who knows if Facebook really forgets? I can just imagine the uprising if Facebook ever sorted through all the photos where the tag was removed, compared them to the tagged photos to make sure it was the right person, then started selling "X's Embarrassing Photo Collection" or something. No, they'd never do that for obvious reasons, but they still have that kind of data.

What I'm trying to say is that they have more information than you realize. I'm not saying that they will or won't do anything bad with it, just that they have it. So whether you care or not depends on how much you trust them.

For the record, Google has plenty of data, too. I personally trust Google a bit more than most companies, but that's just my opinion and it could always change.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#47
post #39

Seems like a good time to revist Paul's essay "The Submarine:" PR is not dishonest. Not quite. In fact, the reason the best PR firms are so effective is precisely that they aren't dishonest. They give reporters genuinely valuable information. A good PR firm won't bug reporters just because the client tells them to; they've worked hard to build their credibility with reporters, and they don't want to destroy it by fee…

Selective truth != truth. I'd say selectively presenting one side is dishonest. I don't have anything against companies who are dishonest, but let's call a spade a spade: PR companies are spin doctors. They're dishonest. That's not quite straight out lying, but to me the very definition of dishonesty is not presenting all of the truth if you can.

You're right, but "dishonesty" is a dirty word, despite not necessarily always being bad or immoral. It's up to journalists to perform balanced reporting. We trust them to do that.

Lazy journalists that simply rewrite press releases, emails from their friends, or otherwise fail to do any meaningful research are the ones truly deserving of the label "dishonest" (amongst others!).

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#48
post #39

Seems like a good time to revist Paul's essay "The Submarine:" PR is not dishonest. Not quite. In fact, the reason the best PR firms are so effective is precisely that they aren't dishonest. They give reporters genuinely valuable information. A good PR firm won't bug reporters just because the client tells them to; they've worked hard to build their credibility with reporters, and they don't want to destroy it by fee…

Selective truth != truth. I'd say selectively presenting one side is dishonest. I don't have anything against companies who are dishonest, but let's call a spade a spade: PR companies are spin doctors. They're dishonest. That's not quite straight out lying, but to me the very definition of dishonesty is not presenting all of the truth if you can.

>I'd say selectively presenting one side is dishonest.

do you vote with your dollars in this regard?

If there was a bigger PR penalty for not revealing unpleasant truths and maybe more support for a company that does reveal unpleasant truths about itself, more companies would be more open.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#49
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "like" button is for publicly sharing your interest in a web page. And for tracking where I've been, Facebook is no worse than any other ad agency; that they show me that they're tracking me is no worse than DoubleClick's or Google Ads' tracking.

Facebook has a lot more than you're giving them credit for. You're only counting data given to them directly, as if the things you tell Facebook are the only things there. They also have a lot of data based on what they infer from your behavior. The most visible aspect of that would be when they recommend people for you to friend. And then there's all the data other people give them about you. Oh, sure, you can untag…

That's kind of patronizing, of course I know that Facebook has all that information. (And though I'm annoyed at the moment, thanks for engaging me, this is an interesting discussion)

You're still missing the point: when information is put into Facebook by me or others, the intent is to share it with others. Facebook is not a vehicle to do things in private, the entire purpose of it is to share with others, whether that be your list of connections, your photos, how much time you waste on Farmville, or how frequently you communicate with Aunt Tilly.

Facebook is the anti-privacy, it's a public space, a place to get things out in the open. There's nothing private at all about Facebook, and that's the entire point of it. It's what Tim Berners-Lee envisioned the web to be, and what it would have been had he been able to put useable authoring tools into the hands of the masses, instead of HTML being limited to the benighted few that can afford the time investment to learning it and working with a web server.

Google, on the other hand, pretends to be an ISP with implicit promise of privacy, but will exploit the fuck out of your private email recipient list just to try to do what Facebook is doing. Google's core business is the same as Facebook's, advertising, but Facebook goes about gathering data about you in a far more transparent and clear manner than Google.

When somebody gives all that juicy personal information to Facebook, they're doing it with the intent to share and are making it public of their own volition for their personal social benefit. When somebody gives personal information to Google, they're not giving their search terms to Google in order to share search terms, they're doing it get something else in exchange, but may very well wish they could keep that juicy personal information completely private.

IMHO, trusting Google more than Facebook or Microsoft or Apple is extremely foolhardy, and a testament to how far a catchy slogan can go on the PR front. It doesn't matter how well-intentioned the people at the top of Google are, failures to adhere to policy will happen, and the Buzz incident is just how flagrantly Google will fail at "not being evil" when they're desperate.

I should note that my Facebook account sits idle because of my paranoia about it. But at least everything Facebook has, I wanted to be public. Google has me by the balls.

Re: PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

#50
post #48
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selective truth != truth. I'd say selectively presenting one side is dishonest. I don't have anything against companies who are dishonest, but let's call a spade a spade: PR companies are spin doctors. They're dishonest. That's not quite straight out lying, but to me the very definition of dishonesty is not presenting all of the truth if you can.

>I'd say selectively presenting one side is dishonest. do you vote with your dollars in this regard? If there was a bigger PR penalty for not revealing unpleasant truths and maybe more support for a company that does reveal unpleasant truths about itself, more companies would be more open.

Whether he votes with his dollars or not is irrelevant to the fact that selectively presenting the truth to influence people is dishonest.
Post reply on HN