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

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#91

Post by pstack » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:20 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…

For there to be negative-PR blowback on this, the user-base will have to pull their heads out of their asses and stop playing FarmVille for five minutes. Even then, chances are they'll shrug and go back to harvesting self-esteem from their facebook "friends".

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#92

Post by markbao » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:26 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #71

klochner wrote: post #61

Kudos to Christopher Soghoian[1] for releasing the email[2] instead of accepting the offer for cash + high-profile smear publication. It makes you wonder about the existing op-eds slamming social circles[3,4,5] [1] http://www.dubfire.net/ [2] http://pastebin.com/zaeTeJeJ [3] http://www.switched.com/2010/08/09/google-shows-off-how-well-it-knows-your-social-circle/ [4] http://marketing.about.com/b/2011/03/31/google-wan…

Shit, it was Christopher Soghoian? Whoever thought that he would participate in a pay-for-editorial job should be fired. Actually, they have almost certainly already been fired. He's practically built a career on exposing corporate bullshit. If they bothered to read his wikipedia page, they'd note that he has a history of releasing private corporate correspondance that is sent to him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chr…

The scary part about this is that Facebook had to screw up this bad to get caught. If they didn't make this blunder, it probably would have worked and nobody would have knew a thing.

Which is probably what happens 99% of the other times.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#93

Post by yalogin » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:30 PM UTC

sid0 wrote: post #75

yalogin wrote: post #57

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.

That's an interesting variation of the saying. If you don't mind my asking, is that translated from a different language, and if so, what language?

I made it up :)

Kettle calling the pot black did not have enough impact for this context for me.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#94

Post by magicalist » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:30 PM UTC

kmavm wrote: post #65

brown9-2 wrote: post #27

From the Daily Beast article: 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 its own social-networking service. So, just to get this straight: Facebook resents that Google use's "Facebook data" in Social Circles, when I as the user have to explicitly allow Go…

Actually, you don't explicitly allow Google to import the data. Google does the following: a) scrape Facebook.com; b) notice that someone named "Roderick Evans" on Facebook is friends with someone named "Danielle Benson" on Facebook; c) notice that someone named Roderick Evans' GMail account has someone named Danielle Benson in his contacts; d) they're done. Your permission is not part of the process. Your Facebook i…

can you point to somewhere talking about facebook accounts getting added, especially without any kind of notification?

I've never heard of that, just easy ones like twitter accounts (which, by the way, required both notification and permission when google asked if it was me and if I wanted my twitter account to be associated with my google profile).

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#95

Post by Mystalic » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:44 PM UTC

zmmz wrote: post #86

bostonpete wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Saying that the "head" has to be the CEO is taking it too far. In most large companies, you are only aware of the behaviour of the two levels of management above you. If you see your boss or your bosses boss behave in a certain way, you will think that this behaviour is acceptable. For example, the CEO of some bank might be very long-term, risk free, investement oriented, but if the boss of the trading desk only care…

The personality of the CEO trickles down to the rest of the organization. His VPs take his philosophy to their subordinates, and so on and so forth. Not only that, but the CEO's policy decisions directly affect the culture of an organization.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#96

Post by phlux » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:45 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #71

klochner wrote: post #61

Kudos to Christopher Soghoian[1] for releasing the email[2] instead of accepting the offer for cash + high-profile smear publication. It makes you wonder about the existing op-eds slamming social circles[3,4,5] [1] http://www.dubfire.net/ [2] http://pastebin.com/zaeTeJeJ [3] http://www.switched.com/2010/08/09/google-shows-off-how-well-it-knows-your-social-circle/ [4] http://marketing.about.com/b/2011/03/31/google-wan…

Shit, it was Christopher Soghoian? Whoever thought that he would participate in a pay-for-editorial job should be fired. Actually, they have almost certainly already been fired. He's practically built a career on exposing corporate bullshit. If they bothered to read his wikipedia page, they'd note that he has a history of releasing private corporate correspondance that is sent to him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chr…

Wouldn't it be sweet if they did know about his reputation and specifically sent this to him so that Facebook would be found out.

Cool - this idea is being downvoted, maybe you misunderstood my point? If an employee of facebook specifically sought to submit this to this particular reporter knowing that it may result in exposure of this plan to the world...

I hate being downvoted without an explanation. What is wrong with this idea?

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#97

Post by ioa44 » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:48 PM UTC

The "Any disclosure or dissemination in whatever form, by another other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited" is laughable.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#98

Post by yanw » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:53 PM UTC

kmavm wrote: post #65

brown9-2 wrote: post #27

From the Daily Beast article: 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 its own social-networking service. So, just to get this straight: Facebook resents that Google use's "Facebook data" in Social Circles, when I as the user have to explicitly allow Go…

Actually, you don't explicitly allow Google to import the data. Google does the following: a) scrape Facebook.com; b) notice that someone named "Roderick Evans" on Facebook is friends with someone named "Danielle Benson" on Facebook; c) notice that someone named Roderick Evans' GMail account has someone named Danielle Benson in his contacts; d) they're done. Your permission is not part of the process. Your Facebook i…

You have to confirm your account first before it gets added to your profile.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#99

Post by thewisedude » Thu, May 12, 2011, 5:57 PM UTC

How this will affect Facebook? If you pretend that Facebook is a car, this will probably be a scratch. Like how people wont give up a car for a scratch, they probably wont give up Facebook.

The general idea that I got about the management of Facebook is that they are a very confident bunch of guys who know what they are doing- since they have spurned many offers to buy them out. This story however kind of conflicts with the idea I had.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#100

Post by jonnathanson » Thu, May 12, 2011, 6:00 PM UTC

pstack wrote: post #91

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…

For there to be negative-PR blowback on this, the user-base will have to pull their heads out of their asses and stop playing FarmVille for five minutes. Even then, chances are they'll shrug and go back to harvesting self-esteem from their facebook "friends".

I think Farmville reveals a lot about the human condition. I'm totally serious. What it basically tells us is that, if left to their own devices, most people will just waste whatever time they've got. If Facebook or Farmville weren't around, it would be something else. Remember annoying email mass-forwards from your relatives and their friends? That's the kind of stuff that's no longer plaguing us because Farmville is keeping those folks occupied. And for that, in a strange and perverse way, I'm thankful for its existence.