4 ms·

This is a Facebook submarine [1]. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

by IBM 8y ago

CGamesPlay 8y ago
Other than the repeated references to the company, do you have any evidence to support that?
badlucklottery 8y ago
Eh. Without proof that seems like a method of easy dismissal instead of arguing why it's wrong. And if it is PR, it's a weird tactic. The article seems to be using FB as benchmark for "worst offender".
- mattnewton 8y ago
  If eveyone’s doing it then there are no options and everyone is just the same level of bad.
- IBM 8y ago
  This story basically has no meat other than "the permissions API for contacts isn't granular enough" padded with casting aspersions on Apple, by the Facebook beat reporter. There are no quotes from anyone in the infosec field who is familiar with the technical underpinnings of iOS or is otherwise familiar with Apple's history with privacy (policy, technical, business model, etc). The entire premise of this story which amounts to "Is Apple really so virtuous?" is completely unsubstantiated. So sure, I don't have any definite proof that this was a story planted by Facebook's PR team. That would require me to have seen the communications between this reporter and them, but I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was A Facebook Production given the context (the running spat between Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook employees on Twitter whining about this very thing, etc).
  - badlucklottery 8y ago
    >This story basically has no meat other than "the permissions API for contacts isn't granular enough" padded with casting aspersions on Apple, by the Facebook beat reporter. I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it instead of viewing it as overly dismissive. >I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was a Facebook Production given the context For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor.
    - IBM 8y ago
      >I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it instead of viewing it as overly dismissive. That's fair. I should have written a fuller comment off the bat, but everyone can read my reasoning now. >For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor. I actually don't think this is anything particularly nefarious or underhanded. It's all in the game, as Omar would say. In fact I'm amused by how transparently bad it is. She brings up some good points (the permissions should be more granular) but the framing of the story is clearly working in service of Facebook's agenda. The actual solution that needs to happen isn't technical at all. It requires new legislation establishing equivalents to Data Protection Commissioners in the EU and creating a comprehensive, omnibus policy for them to enforce.
snowwrestler 8y ago
Without proof, this comment seems pretty low on actual substance. I wish we could all just agree not to cite that (13 year old) PG article anymore. We all know what PR is now, right? That's all it is about. I don't think we need a special HN-only term ("submarine") for basic tactics of PR.
- twblalock 8y ago
  People just love to drop phrases like "submarine", "dark pattern", "so-and-so's law of headlines", etc. Doing so adds nothing to the conversation. The only thing more annoying is "relevant XKCD".
mrmondo 8y ago
I came to the comments to suggest something very similar actually, either from Facebook or Microsoft. That is a great article (The Submarine) and is one of the sources I was considering linking to as well.
jamesrom 8y ago
Seeing how much Facebook has been spending on advertising and PR in recent weeks, I would not be surprised.

This is a Facebook submarine [1]. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

by IBM 8y ago

This is a Facebook submarine [1]. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

CGamesPlay 8y ago

Other than the repeated references to the company, do you have any evidence to support that?

badlucklottery 8y ago

Eh. Without proof that seems like a method of easy dismissal instead of arguing why it's wrong. And if it is PR, it's a weird tactic. The article seems to be using FB as benchmark for "worst offender".

mattnewton 8y ago
If eveyone’s doing it then there are no options and everyone is just the same level of bad.
IBM 8y ago
This story basically has no meat other than "the permissions API for contacts isn't granular enough" padded with casting aspersions on Apple, by the Facebook beat reporter. There are no quotes from anyone in the infosec field who is familiar with the technical underpinnings of iOS or is otherwise familiar with Apple's history with privacy (policy, technical, business model, etc). The entire premise of this story which amounts to "Is Apple really so virtuous?" is completely unsubstantiated. So sure, I don't have any definite proof that this was a story planted by Facebook's PR team. That would require me to have seen the communications between this reporter and them, but I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was A Facebook Production given the context (the running spat between Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook employees on Twitter whining about this very thing, etc).
- badlucklottery 8y ago
  >This story basically has no meat other than "the permissions API for contacts isn't granular enough" padded with casting aspersions on Apple, by the Facebook beat reporter. I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it instead of viewing it as overly dismissive. >I don't think the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say this was a Facebook Production given the context For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor.
  - IBM 8y ago
    >I'm not defending the quality of the article, it's bad. And I think if the reasons you just listed were in your original comment, I would have upvoted it instead of viewing it as overly dismissive. That's fair. I should have written a fuller comment off the bat, but everyone can read my reasoning now. >For sure, the bar is low because the stakes are low. But a shitty writer and a need to inflate word count for the editor yields articles like this as well, no need for a PR conspiracy. I guess it depends a lot on how you feel about Hanlon's razor. I actually don't think this is anything particularly nefarious or underhanded. It's all in the game, as Omar would say. In fact I'm amused by how transparently bad it is. She brings up some good points (the permissions should be more granular) but the framing of the story is clearly working in service of Facebook's agenda. The actual solution that needs to happen isn't technical at all. It requires new legislation establishing equivalents to Data Protection Commissioners in the EU and creating a comprehensive, omnibus policy for them to enforce.

snowwrestler 8y ago

Without proof, this comment seems pretty low on actual substance. I wish we could all just agree not to cite that (13 year old) PG article anymore. We all know what PR is now, right? That's all it is about. I don't think we need a special HN-only term ("submarine") for basic tactics of PR.

twblalock 8y ago
People just love to drop phrases like "submarine", "dark pattern", "so-and-so's law of headlines", etc. Doing so adds nothing to the conversation. The only thing more annoying is "relevant XKCD".

mrmondo 8y ago

I came to the comments to suggest something very similar actually, either from Facebook or Microsoft. That is a great article (The Submarine) and is one of the sources I was considering linking to as well.

jamesrom 8y ago

Seeing how much Facebook has been spending on advertising and PR in recent weeks, I would not be surprised.