Google responds to the Mocality blog post • Hacker News Board

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#31

Post by brudgers » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:00 PM UTC

Lewisham wrote: post #23

mbreese wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I take this to mean that they aren't quite sure what happened yet. However, they are investigating and trying to figure out what happened, and trying to get out in front of this PR-wise.

Yeah, this was posted at 10:30 MTV time, so there wasn't enough time for head office in MTV to figure out what's gone on and what to do/say about it yet.

Having known people who work in PR, if something needs explaining at 2:30 am, the flacks are making their case, not sleeping.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#32

Post by juddlyon » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:02 PM UTC

chrisacky wrote: post #27

AznHisoka wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This also reminds me of what AirBnB did with CraigsList. You're right - it's done everyday. And let's face it... will anyone remember a month from now?

AznHisoka: What did AirBnB do with CraigsList?

http://venturebeat.com/2011/06/02/airbnb-admits-gaming-craig...

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#33

Post by badclient » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:02 PM UTC

michaelcampbell wrote: post #29

badclient wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why he even needs two paragraphs before coming to the point: Google was basically phishing by pretending that they were partnered with Mocality. Isn't that what a phishing scam is? I lie and tell hotmail customers, for example, that I am from hotmail or somehow partnered with hotmail and that I need your password(or credit card). That's almost criminal.

> Google was basically phishing by pretending that they were partnered with Mocality. It's a bit disingenuous to equate some Google employees from doing this with Google as a company doing it. I could be very wrong here (and would be extraordinarily disappointed in the company if so), but I doubt this was a corporate-sanctioned activity.

When an engineer at google comes up with a great idea during work hours not sanctioned by google, google still owns that idea and its success. Not the individual.

Same should apply when shit goes bad.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#34

Post by pork » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:02 PM UTC

michaelcampbell wrote: post #29

badclient wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why he even needs two paragraphs before coming to the point: Google was basically phishing by pretending that they were partnered with Mocality. Isn't that what a phishing scam is? I lie and tell hotmail customers, for example, that I am from hotmail or somehow partnered with hotmail and that I need your password(or credit card). That's almost criminal.

> Google was basically phishing by pretending that they were partnered with Mocality. It's a bit disingenuous to equate some Google employees from doing this with Google as a company doing it. I could be very wrong here (and would be extraordinarily disappointed in the company if so), but I doubt this was a corporate-sanctioned activity.

> It's a bit disingenuous to equate some Google employees from doing this with Google as a company doing it.

Um...no, it's not disingenuous at all.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#35

Post by potatolicious » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:05 PM UTC

redxaxder wrote: post #26

It seems like most of the commenters here are treating the evidence of Google's wrongdoing as conclusive. It isn't. A comment on the post by Richard Wooding demonstrated how Joe Random can make requests from a Google IP address: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&...

Except, Google has already admitted this was theirs. Perhaps rogue employees within Google, but definitely not an unrelated third party.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#36

Post by brudgers » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:07 PM UTC

mbreese wrote: post #12

potatolicious wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take this to mean that they were Google contractors, or other representative third party. In any case, I feel like an apology is insufficient here - it sounds like what these guys have done has significantly harmed the reputation of Mocality, perhaps in an irreversible way. I'm not usually one to leap on the "payday from big company" bandwagon, but IMO Google needs to do more to make this right than simply apologiz…

Funny, I take this to mean that they aren't quite sure what happened yet. However, they are investigating and trying to figure out what happened, and trying to get out in front of this PR-wise.

If Google were significantly unsure, it is unlikely that they would have apologized and it is unlikely that the would be preparing for "taking the appropriate action with the people involved."

In other words, if it was a simple breech of contract, the steps would be straight forward and easy to list as I suspect that actions which bring disrepute upon Google are covered in Google's standard contracts.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#37

Post by hanbam » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:16 PM UTC

redxaxder wrote: post #26

It seems like most of the commenters here are treating the evidence of Google's wrongdoing as conclusive. It isn't. A comment on the post by Richard Wooding demonstrated how Joe Random can make requests from a Google IP address: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&...

I don't think that Google Cache acts as a HTTP proxy.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#38

Post by Aloisius » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:18 PM UTC

Uh, wasn't this fraud? And isn't that criminal? As in jail time not just being fired?

If I said I had a fake partnership with Google and started calling up their customers for my competing website, I'm pretty certain I would go to jail.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#39

Post by napierzaza » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:18 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #35

redxaxder wrote: post #26

It seems like most of the commenters here are treating the evidence of Google's wrongdoing as conclusive. It isn't. A comment on the post by Richard Wooding demonstrated how Joe Random can make requests from a Google IP address: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&...

Except, Google has already admitted this was theirs. Perhaps rogue employees within Google, but definitely not an unrelated third party.

Yes, but I don't think they can spin it as a "rogue team" really. If it is a team inside Google. That's Google's fault. It doesn't matter whether it's Google's fault because they have poor oversight or too much freedom or because they hire people who are criminal.

Re: Google responds to the Mocality blog post

#40

Post by ZeroMinx » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:26 PM UTC

pork wrote: post #34

michaelcampbell wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google was basically phishing by pretending that they were partnered with Mocality. It's a bit disingenuous to equate some Google employees from doing this with Google as a company doing it. I could be very wrong here (and would be extraordinarily disappointed in the company if so), but I doubt this was a corporate-sanctioned activity.

> It's a bit disingenuous to equate some Google employees from doing this with Google as a company doing it. Um...no, it's not disingenuous at all .

Um...yes, it is. Take any 10k+ employee company, can you as a company guarantee that no employer will "do no evil"? That's impossible.

I'm not trying to defend Google here, but just saying that an act made by an employee at a company is equal to a given strategy by the same company is just ludicrous.