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

PR firm pushing anti-Google message for undisclosed client

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

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

#51

Post by lsc »

truthtechnician wrote: post #50
lsc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

right, but it has everything do do with the profitability of honesty.

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

#52

Post by yuhong »

cglee wrote: post #39
raganwald wrote: post #8

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.

Yea, I have considered "legacy" PR fundamentally flawed for a while now.

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

#53

Post by kragen »

epistasis wrote: post #31
warfangle wrote: post #15

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 knows how many seconds you've spent looking at every photo on their site, whose home pages you visit most often, and who you message most frequently. They know every article you've ever visited that has a "Like" button on it, whether you've clicked it or not. And, unlike Google, they don't anonymize this information after N months.

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

#55

Post by msredmond »

ma2rten wrote: post #45
msredmond wrote: post #12

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 ?

;-)

Nah, I'm a journalist, on the receiving end (and also, being a journalist, poor).

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

#56

Post by yuhong »

yuhong wrote: post #52
cglee wrote: 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.

Yea, I have considered "legacy" PR fundamentally flawed for a while now.

"Legacy" PR being based on one-way broadcasting of a message and manipulating perception. It is just fundamentally flawed. There is a PR 2.0 movement which moves away from this stuff and is much better.

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

#57

Post by maxwell »

praptak wrote: post #34
epistasis wrote: post #31

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.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejpepffjfmamnambag...
Post reply on HN