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 future: 'If the boss uses sneaky, underhanded and/or arrogant methods to launch 'his' business, staff will assume it's acceptable for them to use sneaky underhanded and/or arrogant methods to promote it'.
> 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.
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 someone said above, Facebook professing a concern for abuse of privacy is a bit much to swallow.
It's not like this is the first evil thing Facebook has done.... there might be some who might argue that yanking around Facebook's defaults about users' privacy settings was far worse than using a PR sock puppet.
Personally, I think using (or perhaps we should say, trying to use) a PR sock puppet was cowardly, and trying to bash a competing product by spreading anonymous innuendoes was crass. But not all would agree with me. Some might even say that anything which is not illegal, is OK in our capitalistic society. And as far as I know, no laws were broken. That being said, I am so glad I don't work at Facebook.
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.
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.
Wait a minute – this story broke on a blog, and then got picked up by the Daily Beast, and then by Arrington. I guess you could give Arrington credit for spreading this story to his audience, but he doesn't deserve credit for calling Facebook out in the first place.
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!
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/Christopher_Soghoian
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 Google to import my Facebook connections? Shouldn't the user get a say in how their data is used and who uses it?
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?"
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".
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).
I wonder how employees feel about it - is it just business as usual? For that matter, I wonder how would-be investors feel about it.
Google defeated competition from Microsoft and Yahoo with innovation and hard work, not with slimy tactics. They dazzled the world by being open, provocative, fast and effective, forward-thinking, pushing web apps to their limits, giving customers what they wanted.
Is this it? Is Facebook the next Google? How depressing.
I'm pretty sure Facebook employees have been provided some rationalization about it - for example, "Google is pushing a creepy feature and stealing our content, we are just trying to make it public". Believe me, when you have $$$ riding on a side, believing their version of truth is extremely easy to do so, thats human psychology.
I think this will smack of the Streisand Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) over time. Facebook trying to call attention to privacy concerns over Google will, inevitably, as this piece exemplifies, call attention to their own privacy concerns. And the stigma of this hypocritical stance will also call attention to the overall maturity and sensibility of Facebook, as well.
Then again, the kind of people who are most likely to be affected by this entire affair are also the kind of people who already know this information about both companies. So maybe this will have little overall effect?
I don't think what Facebook did was unethical. It's certainly legal. They catch a lot of flack over privacy issues and they want to remind the media about their competitors' privacy issues and influence them to cover those more, so that they don't look as bad in comparison. That sort of work is done by PR firms, so they hired one to do it. In fact, they may not have even asked the PR firm to do it; the PR firm may have acted independently as part of their service.
As for the PR firm's offering to help write an article... Well, I would call it bad/unethical journalism if such an article were published as reporting. If it were published on some opinion page or like a tech blog, that would be fine.
I agree. Supposedly part of what they were doing was "urging [news organizations] to investigate claims that Google was invading people’s privacy." With a company as big and powerful as Google, there should always be people looking at this. If it happens to a reporter persuaded by a PR firm paid by a competitor, I don't we why that is necessarily a problem.
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.
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.
When I hear "Facebook," I immediately think of Zuckerberg. I'm guessing a lot of the reporters out there are making the same correlation. I wonder, though, is this something he knew about (or, rather, did he know about a PR campaign but not of this nature)? It seems a bit out of character for a guy who has been portrayed as being a very calm and calculated person. I wonder if this was just a bit of activity in the PR room that didn't get to the top before it was released...
PR types are always dancing on the shadiness line. Sometimes I get suspicious about the comments on HN when negative stories about certain companies come out.
EDIT: I know you are all downvoting me because I open with "I was an intern", expecting some fuzzy comment in Facebook's defense. No, someone asked what Facebook thinks about this, and I offered my views: I am as confused as the rest of you. I hope the PR firm gets fired, and whoever instructed the PR firm to try this. Give me a break, guys. Stop with the Facebook hate.
I was an intern at Facebook last summer, so I had a great time there. Color me naive, but I don't feel the executives' personalities were "sneaky," probably because I interacted with them in person. I didn't see anything that suggested they would endorse this type of tactic.
With that said, I'd like to believe that it was all a misunderstanding, that perhaps this John guy isn't really affiliated with Facebook (his email is @bm.com), or that this was the mistake of an individual. I sincerely hope that it wasn't an organizational effort to smear Google, because I don't see why they'd need to.
When I was at Facebook, they were supremely confident about being able to snip Google's entry, that they would demoralize Google and make them cry. After all, I was in a sea of brilliant engineers, many of whom understand Google intimately through years of service, and we just needed sheer engineering and better products to win.
Perhaps Facebook just thought it was unfair that it was getting all of the negative light on privacy and wanted to share the blame with someone. But I really don't know, and I'm waiting for an official answer.
I really hope it's good, because I am surprised by this maneuver, to say the least. Maybe the answer is "Google does this too!" But then I would just be doubly disappointed.
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.
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.
[+] [-] JacobAldridge|15 years ago|reply
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 future: 'If the boss uses sneaky, underhanded and/or arrogant methods to launch 'his' business, staff will assume it's acceptable for them to use sneaky underhanded and/or arrogant methods to promote it'.
[+] [-] bostonpete|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] blub|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kwis|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] recoiledsnake|15 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2532918
[+] [-] plinkplonk|15 years ago|reply
And, as someone said above, Facebook professing a concern for abuse of privacy is a bit much to swallow.
[+] [-] tytso|15 years ago|reply
Personally, I think using (or perhaps we should say, trying to use) a PR sock puppet was cowardly, and trying to bash a competing product by spreading anonymous innuendoes was crass. But not all would agree with me. Some might even say that anything which is not illegal, is OK in our capitalistic society. And as far as I know, no laws were broken. That being said, I am so glad I don't work at Facebook.
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freshfunk|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] borism|15 years ago|reply
stock options non olet, I guess...
[+] [-] grovulent|15 years ago|reply
I was going to comment as such on his blog...
...but I don't have a facebook account. ;)
[+] [-] sunchild|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulnelligan|15 years ago|reply
it's almost impossible not to be hypocritical in this day and age unless you live in a mud hut and eat wild berries!
[+] [-] vacri|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ignifero|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klochner|15 years ago|reply
It makes you wonder about the existing op-eds slamming social circles[3,4,5]
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|15 years ago|reply
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 Google to import my Facebook connections? Shouldn't the user get a say in how their data is used and who uses it?
[+] [-] jonnathanson|15 years ago|reply
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?"
[+] [-] pstack|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewcooke|15 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] bad_user|15 years ago|reply
I wonder how employees feel about it - is it just business as usual? For that matter, I wonder how would-be investors feel about it.
Google defeated competition from Microsoft and Yahoo with innovation and hard work, not with slimy tactics. They dazzled the world by being open, provocative, fast and effective, forward-thinking, pushing web apps to their limits, giving customers what they wanted.
Is this it? Is Facebook the next Google? How depressing.
[+] [-] pessimist|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluedanieru|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] franze|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshes|15 years ago|reply
Then again, the kind of people who are most likely to be affected by this entire affair are also the kind of people who already know this information about both companies. So maybe this will have little overall effect?
[+] [-] ericdschmidt|15 years ago|reply
As for the PR firm's offering to help write an article... Well, I would call it bad/unethical journalism if such an article were published as reporting. If it were published on some opinion page or like a tech blog, that would be fine.
[+] [-] eggoa|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrchess|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] smackfu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codeup|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] code_duck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rglover|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yalogin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rakkhi|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] braindead_in|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewcooke|15 years ago|reply
FB complaining about privacy abuses just broke my irony meter.
[+] [-] orijing|15 years ago|reply
I was an intern at Facebook last summer, so I had a great time there. Color me naive, but I don't feel the executives' personalities were "sneaky," probably because I interacted with them in person. I didn't see anything that suggested they would endorse this type of tactic.
With that said, I'd like to believe that it was all a misunderstanding, that perhaps this John guy isn't really affiliated with Facebook (his email is @bm.com), or that this was the mistake of an individual. I sincerely hope that it wasn't an organizational effort to smear Google, because I don't see why they'd need to.
When I was at Facebook, they were supremely confident about being able to snip Google's entry, that they would demoralize Google and make them cry. After all, I was in a sea of brilliant engineers, many of whom understand Google intimately through years of service, and we just needed sheer engineering and better products to win.
Perhaps Facebook just thought it was unfair that it was getting all of the negative light on privacy and wanted to share the blame with someone. But I really don't know, and I'm waiting for an official answer.
I really hope it's good, because I am surprised by this maneuver, to say the least. Maybe the answer is "Google does this too!" But then I would just be doubly disappointed.
[+] [-] Devilboy|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thewisedude|15 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] msg|15 years ago|reply
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.