Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 150 posts

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#101

Post by freshfunk »

plinkplonk wrote: post #8

I wonder what the ex googlers who moved to FaceBook think of such slimy tactics. Might be interesting to hear the perspective of someone who moved from a company that (at least) professes an adherence to "Don't be evil" to a company that apparently has no problems with jumping into the slime. If I worked for Facebook, I'd be ashamed of my employer today (and would probably protest and then get fired!). And, as someon…

I think the war against a former employer is an interesting position to be in but anybody who actually believes in the "Dont Be Evil" slogan anymore is a fool, even if they work at Google.

It's not that they are evil, but I don't think they are particularly different from any of the other decent corporations out there. When it comes to war (and, yes, this is war), companies will go to extreme lengths to win. This means also using questionable tactics. And I'm talking about Google, Facebook and any other huge player that has lots to lose in a war.

These Xooglers who moved over, surely must have known that they were switching from one team to another. The majority of these people, in the end, probably moved over because of the money/IPO/stock. So I imagine they expect their employer to bring guns to a knife fight.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#102

Post by kmavm »

brown9-2 wrote: post #66
kmavm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Doesn't the Facebook user need to allow their connections to be publicly accessed via the Graph API in order for it to be scrape-able in the first place? The main point here is that Google isn't doing anything with the "Facebook data" that the original user of that data (who actually owns it, let's be fair about that) hasn't approved of in one way or another.

No, there's no permission involved on the Google or Facebook side, or at least, there wasn't for me.

My understanding from Google's description above is that they are scraping the logged out facebook.com profiles; your logged out profile has a random selection of friends on it. There are enough of them there for Google to infer that facebook.com/kma (me, who is friends with Nick Schrock, e.g.) is the same Keith Adams as kmadams_at_gmail_dot_com (also me, who also has written emails to someone named Nick Schrock). Without clicking through anything on either site, I started getting little faces in my search results last month saying "So-And-So, your friend on Facebook, shared this on Twitter."

Here's a screenshot of the results I was seeing:

http://imgur.com/0ctAO

Disclosure: I write code for Facebook. I had nothing to do with this whole thing, and cannot officially speak for FB. It could also be the case that I am in a A/B test Google is performing, etc. This was just my experience. It fits with Google's stated mechanisms for how Social Circles work.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#103

Post by gobongo »

freshfunk wrote: post #101
plinkplonk wrote: post #8

I wonder what the ex googlers who moved to FaceBook think of such slimy tactics. Might be interesting to hear the perspective of someone who moved from a company that (at least) professes an adherence to "Don't be evil" to a company that apparently has no problems with jumping into the slime. If I worked for Facebook, I'd be ashamed of my employer today (and would probably protest and then get fired!). And, as someon…

I think the war against a former employer is an interesting position to be in but anybody who actually believes in the "Dont Be Evil" slogan anymore is a fool, even if they work at Google. It's not that they are evil, but I don't think they are particularly different from any of the other decent corporations out there. When it comes to war (and, yes, this is war), companies will go to extreme lengths to win. This mea…

"When it comes to war (and, yes, this is war"

Spoken like somebody that has never been anywhere near a war. How many casualities have there been in this Google/Facebook war? How many innocent civilians killed as collateral damage? How much forced migration resulting in starvation, out-of-control refugee situations, etc?

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#104

Post by msg »

thewisedude wrote: post #99

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 w…

They were fools to let this out in public. Not because of Facebook users but because of developers.

Trying to win not through technical superiority but through FUD spread by cutouts is emblematic of the worst moves of Microsoft. Yes, short-sighted leadership at the top is responsible for many of their current woes.

But also, when tech companies make moves that lack integrity, the best workers head for the exits. They have the least to lose because they can work anywhere. The threshold is lower to act on the courage of their convictions. And high integrity and great work go together.

Top college hires (perhaps the most idealistic and with the least to lose) hear about this stuff and just don't apply.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#105

Post by enjo »

Mystalic wrote: post #95
zmmz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems to me that organizations tend to take on the personality of the strongest person in the chain. EVERY large company has one or two rogue units inside of it that behave very differently (usually for the better) than the overall culture. In each case I've dealt with, there has been a leader who had a tremendously strong personality that drowned out everything above him.

Most of the time, however, middle management tends to reflect and pass-on the tone and traits that the CEO presents just as you say.

It's really an interesting dynamic.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#106

Post by doki_pen »

ortusdux wrote: post #81
vacri wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something is legal doesn't forbid you from thinking it's cowardly or crass. Facebook are free to do distasteful things, but - and here's the important part - we are free to condemn them for doing so. Forbidding us from sharing our opinions because "hey, it's legal" is a self-defeating argument.

To take this to the extreme, bestiality was legal in Florida up until this week.

My old friend Pig-Fucker, from Deltona, FL, must be very sad.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#107

Post by bluelu »

kmavm wrote: post #102
brown9-2 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the Facebook user need to allow their connections to be publicly accessed via the Graph API in order for it to be scrape-able in the first place? The main point here is that Google isn't doing anything with the "Facebook data" that the original user of that data (who actually owns it, let's be fair about that) hasn't approved of in one way or another.

No, there's no permission involved on the Google or Facebook side, or at least, there wasn't for me. My understanding from Google's description above is that they are scraping the logged out facebook.com profiles; your logged out profile has a random selection of friends on it. There are enough of them there for Google to infer that facebook.com/kma (me, who is friends with Nick Schrock, e.g.) is the same Keith Adams…

Bravo for Facebook not pulling a lame PR stunt like google when they thought Bing would be stealing their results!

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#108

Post by rwaliany »

smackfu wrote: post #53
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.

I guarantee you that Google is running it as a negative PR campaign against Facebook. There's no way someone would sabotage their relationship with Facebook when they're paying the bills.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#109

Post by sesqu »

phlux wrote: post #96
erikpukinskis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The mail wasn't sent by a Facebook employee, it was sent by a PR firm. You know, someone who, by definition, would not do that.

Re: Facebook Loses Much Face In Secret Smear On Google

#110

Post by dkokelley »

gobongo wrote: post #103
freshfunk wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the war against a former employer is an interesting position to be in but anybody who actually believes in the "Dont Be Evil" slogan anymore is a fool, even if they work at Google. It's not that they are evil, but I don't think they are particularly different from any of the other decent corporations out there. When it comes to war (and, yes, this is war), companies will go to extreme lengths to win. This mea…

"When it comes to war (and, yes, this is war" Spoken like somebody that has never been anywhere near a war. How many casualities have there been in this Google/Facebook war? How many innocent civilians killed as collateral damage? How much forced migration resulting in starvation, out-of-control refugee situations, etc?

None of those things define what a war is. They're just unfortunate byproducts of a typical, national war.
Post reply on HN