Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#51

Post by jonnathanson » Thu, May 12, 2011, 2:12 PM UTC

Color me perplexed by Facebook's move here. Not only is the blowback from this effort bad PR, but I fail to see what FB stood to gain from this in the first place. Generating a bunch of bad publicity and calling attention to Google's alleged invasions of privacy is just going to bring scrutiny down upon FB eventually -- regardless of whether or not this plot ever came to light.

I mean, did they think it would be a tremendous leap of the imagination for the court of public opinion and/or regulators to ask themselves "Hey, so Google is sketchy on user data...hmm...I wonder what other company might have a boatload of such data?"

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#52

Post by mrchess » Thu, May 12, 2011, 2:13 PM UTC

Not sure what the big deal is here. Big companies run negative PR campaigns against other companies ALL the time -- running negative PR campaigns is a very common strategy in the large market. But I supposed they usually run try to run them in secret, so it is a bit unfortunate that they got caught.

If anything an article like this makes me lose face for techcrunch, who acts like this kind of PR tactic has never happened before.

If you don't believe me read Toxic Sludge, which is a book about the PR industry.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#53

Post by smackfu » Thu, May 12, 2011, 2:21 PM UTC

mrchess wrote: post #52

Not sure what the big deal is here. Big companies run negative PR campaigns against other companies ALL the time -- running negative PR campaigns is a very common strategy in the large market. But I supposed they usually run try to run them in secret, so it is a bit unfortunate that they got caught. If anything an article like this makes me lose face for techcrunch, who acts like this kind of PR tactic has never happ…

It also makes you wonder when you are reading this story somewhere if Google has their PR agency running it as a negative PR campaign against Facebook.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#54

Post by andrewcooke » Thu, May 12, 2011, 2:21 PM UTC

jonnathanson wrote: post #51

Color me perplexed by Facebook's move here. Not only is the blowback from this effort bad PR, but I fail to see what FB stood to gain from this in the first place. Generating a bunch of bad publicity and calling attention to Google's alleged invasions of privacy is just going to bring scrutiny down upon FB eventually -- regardless of whether or not this plot ever came to light. I mean, did they think it would be a tr…

my guess is that they hoped to pull themselves up as they pulled google down. they probably feel like they are doing nothing wrong, and that it's unfair that they are criticised more than google. so they want to "level the playing field".

i don't think they thought it through in absolute terms, just as "getting even".

but if you want a pro-fb response, i'd suggest going to quora and asking there (or just searching - there's probably already a discussion). they have a couple of ex-fb people who will provide some "balance" (in particular, look for yishan wong).

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#55

Post by pemulis » Thu, May 12, 2011, 2:31 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #45

grovulent wrote: post #10

Good ol' Arrington... he's got the courage to call em out. To really stick it to the big guys. It takes guts to say "No More!" to the corrupt and the wicked, even when such a stance might cost you personally. I was going to comment as such on his blog... ...but I don't have a facebook account. ;)

wow, I've never seen that before - you comment through your facebook login? That's... that's just evil.

You can also use Facebook Comments with a Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail account. But not - notice - a Google account.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#56

Post by bostonpete » Thu, May 12, 2011, 2:33 PM UTC

JacobAldridge wrote: post #31

A key saying I provide all my clients with in regards to corporate culture and behaviours: a fish rots from the head. Usually this means things like 'if the boss is ten minutes late to every meeting, staff will assume it's acceptable for everyone to be ten minutes late to a meeting'. Given Zuckerbeg's reputation for sneaky behaviour and this example of his PR team, I now have an excellent example to share in the futu…

> I now have an excellent example to share in the future

Your comment intuitively seems correct, and I'm inclined to agree with you. But I can't help but wonder if you just end up picking examples that support this claim. Most examples of corporate wrong-doing probably can't be correlated with traits of their CEO (they're just mistakes made by inept, or possibly malicious, individuals or groups).

Statistically, some percentage of corporate wrong-doing will correlate to some event in the CEO's past. I'm not sure that necessarily means that we can point to those cases as proof that a fish rots from the head.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#57

Post by yalogin » Thu, May 12, 2011, 3:01 PM UTC

The only chink in Google's armor is privacy so facebook had no other option. But as the saying goes - The sun cannot call the stove hot.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#58

Post by paulnelligan » Thu, May 12, 2011, 3:02 PM UTC

grovulent wrote: post #10

Good ol' Arrington... he's got the courage to call em out. To really stick it to the big guys. It takes guts to say "No More!" to the corrupt and the wicked, even when such a stance might cost you personally. I was going to comment as such on his blog... ...but I don't have a facebook account. ;)

Arrington's playing the numbers game too - more comments on his post means more people posting it to their facebook walls, in this case, I was happy to repost this because of my dislike for everything facebook stands for, despite the fact that I too use it for my own purposes ...

it's almost impossible not to be hypocritical in this day and age unless you live in a mud hut and eat wild berries!

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#59

Post by AlbertoE » Thu, May 12, 2011, 3:07 PM UTC

Doesn't seem very secret to me. If it was secret people wouldn't know about it. A secret smear is a whisper, not a newspaper article. Furthermore its not a smear if its true. So, 2 lies in the headline. I clicked on the link to verify that it had no information, as things with 2 obvious lies in the headline are wont to do. I have verified that there is no information at the link.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#60

Post by firebones » Thu, May 12, 2011, 3:07 PM UTC

mycroftiv wrote: post #4

latch wrote: post #3

Are we just assuming that "an unnamed client" is Facebook, because DUH, who else? Or am I missing a piece of this story?

According to the Daily Beast article linked from the Techcrunch article, Facebook admitted it: "Confronted with evidence, a Facebook spokesman last night confirmed that Facebook hired Burson, citing two reasons: First, because it believes Google is doing some things in social networking that raise privacy concerns; second, and perhaps more important, because Facebook resents Google’s attempts to use Facebook data in…

So Facebook admits that their intentions were good ("just needed to get this message out"), and Burson takes the fall for its unethical approach (while gaining reputation for other companies needing similar services). Meanwhile, mission accomplished in raising visibility on what Facebook PR intended--that when pieces about online privacy come up, there's an increased chance that Google will be mentioned in the same breath as Facebook.

Seems like politics 101.