6 ms·

> Did I misunderstand it? Yes. You seem to assume this was some kind of press release. It was not: Google was previewing a new unreleased feature to one of the

> Did I misunderstand it? Yes. You seem to assume this was some kind of press release. It was not: Google was previewing a new unreleased feature to one of their big clients, and that feature preview was under NDA. It just happens that this big client was Forbes, a news website. Forbes then failed to uphold the NDA internally and ended up publishing an article about this, breaking the agreement. Google PR noticed and reminded them of the NDA, and the editor in charge of the article at Forbes agreed and took down the article. So evil.

x0x0 9y ago
No one has disputed the evil bit, which is that google is leveraging their search monopoly to force publishers to use Google Plus. It serves Google very well to turn this into a debate about whether this reporter was or wasn't under nda. Regardless, the reporter's claim about plus is very newsworthy.
- awesomepantsm 9y ago
  Things that happened 6 years ago aren't really considered news...
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    When there are new revelations, they certainly are.
rdtsc 9y ago
Ah, thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense. It did seem like a misunderstanding. The reporter was never told by her superiors at Forbes that the meeting was under NDA. And she was "wearing two hats" at the time so to speak, which explains why she was invited to the meeting, but it wasn't as a "reporter" it seems: "In addition to writing and reporting, I helped run social media there, so I got pulled into a meeting with Google salespeople about Google’s then-new social" I wear multiple hats and sometimes roles have conflicting interests so it can difficult and confusing.
jfoutz 9y ago
Google PR confirmed, to a reporter, on record. Not covered by nda. Once you publicly disclose, the nda makes no sense.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  "Google PR confirmed, to a reporter, on record. Not covered by nda. " Sorry, but no. Pretty much all nda's in the world would disagree with you. Heck, let's just take the first search result for "nda sample" and look at it: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentiality-agreement-nda-33343.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentialit... Stare at clause 2, and you will see that situation would still be covered by NDA. In basically all NDA's, it's about who does it, not about how it's done. (We're assuming #1's requirements were met, as most NDA's also say that. AFAICT, the other people in the room believe #1 was met. Pretty much every presentation by Google ever is stamped Google Confidential and Proprietary)
  - jfoutz 9y ago
    i'm not a lawyer and not interested in becoming a lawyer. Ok, i see your point. I'll go ahead and stipulate that the reporter was a super villain, and google was lilly white in their intentions. Google was very lucky their lawyers were not the brain dead morons that went on record with a reporter about confidential information. There are plenty of articles speculating about how +1 would affect search rankings in 2011, which gives quite a bit of room in 2(a). Google was in a position of immense power, and their clown-car approach happened to work out for them. Seriously guys, the trick to fire is banging the rocks together. Do not go on record with a reporter about confidential information. it's PR 101. Just don't do it. Ever. edit This is condescending and harsh. I'm going to leave it, rather than delete it, because i think big G's PR department should have known better. But maybe take the words with some salt.
- mirimir 9y ago
  If it was "Google PR" that confirmed, speaking to her as a reporter, yes. But it's not entirely clear what "Google's press shop" means. If she spoke with Google staff in her role as a Forbes employee, it arguably wasn't really a public disclosure. Because said Google staff arguably wouldn't have disclosed that information to some random reporter.
TwoBit 9y ago
Forget about the NDA situation. What's evil is penalizing traffic that doesn't promote Google with buttons. That's far worse.
influx 9y ago
Just for the record, the parent comment comes from a Google employee.
- tomcam 9y ago
  Why does that matter?
  - influx 9y ago
    They have a vested interest literally (RSUs). I'll let you decide whether they should disclose that before making comments defending them.

x0x0 9y ago

No one has disputed the evil bit, which is that google is leveraging their search monopoly to force publishers to use Google Plus. It serves Google very well to turn this into a debate about whether this reporter was or wasn't under nda. Regardless, the reporter's claim about plus is very newsworthy.

awesomepantsm 9y ago
Things that happened 6 years ago aren't really considered news...
- wavefunction 9y ago
  When there are new revelations, they certainly are.

rdtsc 9y ago

Ah, thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense. It did seem like a misunderstanding. The reporter was never told by her superiors at Forbes that the meeting was under NDA. And she was "wearing two hats" at the time so to speak, which explains why she was invited to the meeting, but it wasn't as a "reporter" it seems: "In addition to writing and reporting, I helped run social media there, so I got pulled into a meeting with Google salespeople about Google’s then-new social" I wear multiple hats and sometimes roles have conflicting interests so it can difficult and confusing.

jfoutz 9y ago

Google PR confirmed, to a reporter, on record. Not covered by nda. Once you publicly disclose, the nda makes no sense.

DannyBee 9y ago
"Google PR confirmed, to a reporter, on record. Not covered by nda. " Sorry, but no. Pretty much all nda's in the world would disagree with you. Heck, let's just take the first search result for "nda sample" and look at it: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentiality-agreement-nda-33343.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sample-confidentialit... Stare at clause 2, and you will see that situation would still be covered by NDA. In basically all NDA's, it's about who does it, not about how it's done. (We're assuming #1's requirements were met, as most NDA's also say that. AFAICT, the other people in the room believe #1 was met. Pretty much every presentation by Google ever is stamped Google Confidential and Proprietary)
- jfoutz 9y ago
  i'm not a lawyer and not interested in becoming a lawyer. Ok, i see your point. I'll go ahead and stipulate that the reporter was a super villain, and google was lilly white in their intentions. Google was very lucky their lawyers were not the brain dead morons that went on record with a reporter about confidential information. There are plenty of articles speculating about how +1 would affect search rankings in 2011, which gives quite a bit of room in 2(a). Google was in a position of immense power, and their clown-car approach happened to work out for them. Seriously guys, the trick to fire is banging the rocks together. Do not go on record with a reporter about confidential information. it's PR 101. Just don't do it. Ever. edit This is condescending and harsh. I'm going to leave it, rather than delete it, because i think big G's PR department should have known better. But maybe take the words with some salt.
mirimir 9y ago
If it was "Google PR" that confirmed, speaking to her as a reporter, yes. But it's not entirely clear what "Google's press shop" means. If she spoke with Google staff in her role as a Forbes employee, it arguably wasn't really a public disclosure. Because said Google staff arguably wouldn't have disclosed that information to some random reporter.

TwoBit 9y ago

Forget about the NDA situation. What's evil is penalizing traffic that doesn't promote Google with buttons. That's far worse.

influx 9y ago

Just for the record, the parent comment comes from a Google employee.

tomcam 9y ago
Why does that matter?
- influx 9y ago
  They have a vested interest literally (RSUs). I'll let you decide whether they should disclose that before making comments defending them.