5 ms·

Attack Ad: Google CEO Moonlights as an Evil Ice Cream Truck Driver

37 points by robg 16y ago

petercooper 16y ago
How is it "utterly ridiculous" to "[suggest] that children may want to change their names when they grow up to escape the embarrassing online mistakes of their youth that will have been recorded on social networking sites"? It's ridiculous that people might need to do that or that they feel ashamed enough of being themselves to do that but it's not ridiculous to note that yes, sadly, this might be a requirement for some people who have tarnished their reputations. People have changed their names to escape previous misdeeds for centuries. Schmidt is just giving advice that hints at truths some people don't want to accept. That's not ridiculous; it's advice.
Tichy 16y ago
I despise the people who created that ad. Their attitude is to me one of the worst that humans can display. It reminds me a little bit of the anit-jewish movies the nazis created (sorry for evoking Godwin's law, but it is like that). Nothing good can come from scapegoating like that. And Smith is hardly to blame if teenagers spill their guts on facebook. Seems to me he rather tried to warn those kids.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
andyn 16y ago
Firstly I'm glad we don't have attack ads like this in the UK. Secondly I was curious as to how a consumer group managed to get enough cash together to make this. A quick search reveals http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/ http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/ which suggests that Consumer Watchdog is a for-hire astroturfing organisation hired by Microsoft. Certainly Google aren't completely innocent and raising awareness among people about privacy on the internet is a good thing. But this ad doesn't seem to have come about from the goodness of someone's heart.
- ced 16y ago
  Nasty. Is that common in the tech industry? I knew Microsoft was ruthless in business, but this is just shameful.
  - WalterGR 16y ago
    To be clear, as andyn said: the blog post "suggests that Consumer Watchdog is a for-hire astroturfing organisation hired by Microsoft." Emphasis mine. Take a look around his site. For example, the links at the very top include: "Comes vs. Microsoft", "OOXML", "OpenDocument", "Novell". He's not an impartial observer.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I could see Microsoft sponsoring anti-Google astroturfing, but it seems strange that they'd sponsor something specifically calling for a "do not track" list for the web. Is Microsoft actually in favor of that? It's not impossible, but I would've guessed that it would be something they'd be opposed to, given that it'd also put restrictions on them.
  - leot 16y ago
    Microsoft need not necessarily be an advocate of "do not track" if their only interest is in damaging Google's brand.
  - yanw 16y ago
    Microsoft have long advocated for internet IDs and a "do not track" policy would establish that. A "do not track" list on the internet doesn't make sense, the reason ad networks use cookies is because people don't have an identifiable ID online, so they are proposing government mandated internet IDs which is exactly the opposite of what you want if privacy is what you're after.
    - xilun0 16y ago
      what about a simple standard navigator control emitting headers or maybe a kind of cookies stating that you don't want to be tracked ? i don't see the need for any ID
gojomo 16y ago
Sad that the same personal demonization tactics of political campaigns are being applied to this issue. Schmidt can be in error without being evil. Imagery that gets the 'Consumer Watchdog' group lots of emotional reaction and opt-in TXTs isn't likely to create the most reasoned, respectful discussion or public policy. And, the effort spent campaigning for a legislated 'do not track me' list would be better spent promoting and expanding the sort of self-help that's already listed on this group's 'Privacy Toolbox' page: http://insidegoogle.com/takeaction/privacy-toolbox/ http://insidegoogle.com/takeaction/privacy-toolbox/ These solutions don't require any congressional action or one-size-fits-all approach or national-database-of-opt-out-identities -- you can adopt them today, if concerned. Self-help can also keep up with changing technology better than a regulatory solution. And a campaign for self-help doesn't require anyone to send lawyers and lobbyists and political contributions to DC to make their case.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
pclark 16y ago
These adverts are beyond insulting.
danilocampos 16y ago
Whatever your feelings on the ad, it brings up an interesting point: Eric Schmidt may be doing Google more harm than good these days. His remarks on privacy have been weird. And not a little creepy. More often than not, the big things that move the needle on my opinion of Google have been remarks of Schmidt's. Gruber said it well here: http://daringfireball.net/2010/08/creep_executive_officer http://daringfireball.net/2010/08/creep_executive_officer "Tthe problem with Google is that Eric Schmidt is creepy. I think he’s a really weird dude. Recall, for example, this comment of Schmidt’s from 2009, regarding Google and privacy: 'If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.'" Schmidt is really the public face of Google. Larry and Sergey seem to keep quiet, Marissa Mayer isn't doing those magazine features anymore, but every few months Schmidt just does or says something odd. It's a questionable strategy. edit: Questionable, that is, when your company is trusted with the personal data of hundreds of millions of people. Caesar's wife must be above reproach.
- yanw 16y ago
  That one quote was in reference to the patriot act and it was taken out context too many times it's ridiculous, the more recent WSJ quotes were about Schmidt playing the Scifi author, it's no excuse to depict him as a child molester and certainly no reason to agree with an anstroturfer anti-Google organization masquerading as a consumer advocacy group.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    It doesn't matter. Like I said above in my edit: Caesar's wife must be above reproach. He doesn't get to say weird things that are taken out of context. He needs either better handlers or to step back and let someone more relatable be the person who represents the company to outsiders.
    - yanw 16y ago
      I suppose from a purely PR angle you have a point. I once watched an interview with Steve Ballmer sitting next to him was a MSFT PR/Lawyer guy, his job was basically to hit Ballmer with a stick if he felt something stupid was about to be said, I suppose that approach could be adopted by Google, or better yet Google needs to get their women to do the interviews, as women perceived as more aware and sensitive to the privacy issue and it wouldn't hurt Google's image to show off their lady Googlers.
nkurz 16y ago
This ad really strikes me as a stretch. I'm all for people trying to organize data protection laws, but I'm also OK with Google trading free services in the present for information they hope will be valuable in the future. But I'm frequently surprised by the diversity of opinion on this site. Are there people here who feel the ad speaks to them? Who are moved to act from having watched it? What do you like about it? I'd love to hear the other side on this.
stellar678 16y ago
Sweet irony that the best place to share this was...YouTube.
- enomar 16y ago
  Not only that, but consumerwatchdog.org uses Google Analytics: view-source:http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/

37 points by robg 16y ago

How is it "utterly ridiculous" to "[suggest] that children may want to change their names when they grow up to escape the embarrassing online mistakes of their youth that will have been recorded on social networking sites"? It's ridiculous that people might need to do that or that they feel ashamed enough of being themselves to do that but it's not ridiculous to note that yes, sadly, this might be a requirement for some people who have tarnished their reputations. People have changed their names to escape previous misdeeds for centuries. Schmidt is just giving advice that hints at truths some people don't want to accept. That's not ridiculous; it's advice.

Tichy 16y ago

I despise the people who created that ad. Their attitude is to me one of the worst that humans can display. It reminds me a little bit of the anit-jewish movies the nazis created (sorry for evoking Godwin's law, but it is like that). Nothing good can come from scapegoating like that. And Smith is hardly to blame if teenagers spill their guts on facebook. Seems to me he rather tried to warn those kids.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

andyn 16y ago

Firstly I'm glad we don't have attack ads like this in the UK. Secondly I was curious as to how a consumer group managed to get enough cash together to make this. A quick search reveals http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/ http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/ which suggests that Consumer Watchdog is a for-hire astroturfing organisation hired by Microsoft. Certainly Google aren't completely innocent and raising awareness among people about privacy on the internet is a good thing. But this ad doesn't seem to have come about from the goodness of someone's heart.

ced 16y ago
Nasty. Is that common in the tech industry? I knew Microsoft was ruthless in business, but this is just shameful.
- WalterGR 16y ago
  To be clear, as andyn said: the blog post "suggests that Consumer Watchdog is a for-hire astroturfing organisation hired by Microsoft." Emphasis mine. Take a look around his site. For example, the links at the very top include: "Comes vs. Microsoft", "OOXML", "OpenDocument", "Novell". He's not an impartial observer.
_delirium 16y ago
I could see Microsoft sponsoring anti-Google astroturfing, but it seems strange that they'd sponsor something specifically calling for a "do not track" list for the web. Is Microsoft actually in favor of that? It's not impossible, but I would've guessed that it would be something they'd be opposed to, given that it'd also put restrictions on them.
- leot 16y ago
  Microsoft need not necessarily be an advocate of "do not track" if their only interest is in damaging Google's brand.
- yanw 16y ago
  Microsoft have long advocated for internet IDs and a "do not track" policy would establish that. A "do not track" list on the internet doesn't make sense, the reason ad networks use cookies is because people don't have an identifiable ID online, so they are proposing government mandated internet IDs which is exactly the opposite of what you want if privacy is what you're after.
  - xilun0 16y ago
    what about a simple standard navigator control emitting headers or maybe a kind of cookies stating that you don't want to be tracked ? i don't see the need for any ID

gojomo 16y ago

Sad that the same personal demonization tactics of political campaigns are being applied to this issue. Schmidt can be in error without being evil. Imagery that gets the 'Consumer Watchdog' group lots of emotional reaction and opt-in TXTs isn't likely to create the most reasoned, respectful discussion or public policy. And, the effort spent campaigning for a legislated 'do not track me' list would be better spent promoting and expanding the sort of self-help that's already listed on this group's 'Privacy Toolbox' page: http://insidegoogle.com/takeaction/privacy-toolbox/ http://insidegoogle.com/takeaction/privacy-toolbox/ These solutions don't require any congressional action or one-size-fits-all approach or national-database-of-opt-out-identities -- you can adopt them today, if concerned. Self-help can also keep up with changing technology better than a regulatory solution. And a campaign for self-help doesn't require anyone to send lawyers and lobbyists and political contributions to DC to make their case.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

pclark 16y ago

These adverts are beyond insulting.

danilocampos 16y ago

Whatever your feelings on the ad, it brings up an interesting point: Eric Schmidt may be doing Google more harm than good these days. His remarks on privacy have been weird. And not a little creepy. More often than not, the big things that move the needle on my opinion of Google have been remarks of Schmidt's. Gruber said it well here: http://daringfireball.net/2010/08/creep_executive_officer http://daringfireball.net/2010/08/creep_executive_officer "Tthe problem with Google is that Eric Schmidt is creepy. I think he’s a really weird dude. Recall, for example, this comment of Schmidt’s from 2009, regarding Google and privacy: 'If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.'" Schmidt is really the public face of Google. Larry and Sergey seem to keep quiet, Marissa Mayer isn't doing those magazine features anymore, but every few months Schmidt just does or says something odd. It's a questionable strategy. edit: Questionable, that is, when your company is trusted with the personal data of hundreds of millions of people. Caesar's wife must be above reproach.

yanw 16y ago
That one quote was in reference to the patriot act and it was taken out context too many times it's ridiculous, the more recent WSJ quotes were about Schmidt playing the Scifi author, it's no excuse to depict him as a child molester and certainly no reason to agree with an anstroturfer anti-Google organization masquerading as a consumer advocacy group.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  It doesn't matter. Like I said above in my edit: Caesar's wife must be above reproach. He doesn't get to say weird things that are taken out of context. He needs either better handlers or to step back and let someone more relatable be the person who represents the company to outsiders.
  - yanw 16y ago
    I suppose from a purely PR angle you have a point. I once watched an interview with Steve Ballmer sitting next to him was a MSFT PR/Lawyer guy, his job was basically to hit Ballmer with a stick if he felt something stupid was about to be said, I suppose that approach could be adopted by Google, or better yet Google needs to get their women to do the interviews, as women perceived as more aware and sensitive to the privacy issue and it wouldn't hurt Google's image to show off their lady Googlers.

nkurz 16y ago

This ad really strikes me as a stretch. I'm all for people trying to organize data protection laws, but I'm also OK with Google trading free services in the present for information they hope will be valuable in the future. But I'm frequently surprised by the diversity of opinion on this site. Are there people here who feel the ad speaks to them? Who are moved to act from having watched it? What do you like about it? I'd love to hear the other side on this.

stellar678 16y ago

Sweet irony that the best place to share this was...YouTube.

enomar 16y ago
Not only that, but consumerwatchdog.org uses Google Analytics: view-source:http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/