11 ms·

A Look Inside the Tactics of Definers, Facebook’s Attack Dog

89 points by chablent 8y ago

dirkgently 8y ago
Key takeaways: 1. Before Ms. Sandberg’s Senate testimony, Facebook lobbyists pushed lawmakers to refrain from questioning her about privacy, censorship and other issues, and to stick to election interference. The committee’s chairman, Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, was swayed and warned members to stick to the hearing’s planned topic, The Times reported Wednesday. 2. Facebook had also lobbied for the hearing to include a Google emissary of similar rank to Ms. Sandberg. Mr. Burr invited Larry Page, a Google co-founder, but he did not show up. 3. In an email days before the hearing, a Definers employee pressed a Times reporter to write that Facebook was taking the senators’ concerns seriously while Google was irresponsible for skipping the hearing. 4. The day before the hearing, NTK Network reported that Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, had suggested that Google was possibly a monopoly. 5. Those pieces were just two of at least 11 negative items NTK has posted about Google since late March. Facebook really seems butthurt about Google. Instead of learning from Google about being transpernt on how they use user data, they basically dragged Google in the controversy, and I would say they have been pretty successful.
- yeukhon 8y ago
  “Instead of learning from Google about being transpernt on how they use user data” I am curious evidences of this. Or are you comparing objectively with the two relative to recent events? Then sure. FB’s been very sketchy all this time with little knowing until the whole election interference and Cambridge scandal went public and viral did people pay attention. But thanks for the takeaways.
  - dirkgently 8y ago
    Not sure if I understand you here. Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. They also do not sell user data (that's not their business model). Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. They are happy if you want to take your data and go to someone else - they released takeaway tool more than 10 years ago. Fb, on the other hand, never were trustworthy, even before any of the recent scandals became public. They have had history of changing things around that led to users unknowingly expose their details they thought they had locked down, more than once. They have been caught lying to advertisers about clicks and views. But those finer points are lost when they have successfully dragged Google in the mudbath with their smear campaign, irrespective of the scale or intentions at Google.
    - conradev 8y ago
      > Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. Or Google is just better at staying out of the spotlight: > Disclosure will likely result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal”, Google policy and legal officials wrote in a memo obtained by the Journal. It “almost guarantees Sundar will testify before Congress”, the memo said, referring to the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai. The disclosure would also invite “immediate regulatory interest”. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-plus-security-breach-wall-street-journal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-pl...
    - Puer 8y ago
      > Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. I'm curious what led to you to this conclusion and how you define "hide." What about how they were tracking location information even after you turned off location history??
    - zaphod4prez 8y ago
      Uhhh, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with you about Google being a "good guy" here. For example, did you know that people at Google can read your email [1]? ...And so can literally hundreds of app makers...[2] That to me is about as flagrant and messed up as I can imagine. If you really trust Google with your data, I recommend you investigate their (very) checkered history a bit more. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-gmail-except-in-all-these-cases-2018-7/ https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-g... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers-to-read-peoples-gmails-report-2018-7?r=UK&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers...
- ForrestN 8y ago
  Just a polite reminder that using "butthurt" to mean "resentful"or "angry" paints a picture that is often homophobic and nearly always making light of rape. In my opinion, we should try not to normalize its use any further.
  - ehsanu1 8y ago
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology-of-butthurt https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology...
    - ForrestN 8y ago
      This is incorrect. Derivation doesn’t prove usage. http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-using-the-term-butthurt/ http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-usi...
      - ehsanu1 8y ago
        Does inappropriate adoption of a word necessarily preclude its use in its original form? Example: "autistic". In recent times, this word is sometimes used as an insult, which seems to me to be somewhat offensive to those with the actual syndrome. However, referring to those who do have the syndrome as medically autistic is obviously not offensive. This is a more clear-cut example to make the point that misappropriating a word and giving it secondary connotations in certain contexts does not make the word unfit for use in all cases.
      - spangry 8y ago
        "Essentially, the term is used when someone is upset that someone else has gotten the better or them or beaten them or bested them in some way. That is to say, they dominated them. You know, like when someone is raped." Your source is the blog entry of some self-professed 'angry feminist' making up an etymology and then trying to police everyone's language on that basis. People like this are such insufferable know-it-alls.
  - carapace 8y ago
- burtonator 8y ago
  The issue is that without violating your privacy, Facebook really doesn't have a revenue model.
wpietri 8y ago
I have not closed my account, as I don't want to entirely lose touch with a bunch of people. But I've decided I'm not going to log in more than once a month. I just can't in good conscience let them rent my eyeballs or use my content any more.
- Arbalest 8y ago
  I've pretty much been running in that mode for a while now (though maybe more on average once per week). It's fine. As long as you don't engage in any commentary on other people's stuff, you naturally gravitate away from checking. The content is usually not that interesting. The moment you write anything there, you get an emotional stake in checking its progress.
- r00fus 8y ago
  I hope you and all your family are running FB cookie blockers because that's another huge trove of info they can use to target and sell. Shadow accounts for those who don't comply and real accounts for those who login.
- grogenaut 8y ago
  I can't decide if this is a beautiful troll or what goes for taking a moral stance these days.
- burtonator 8y ago
  What would really piss off Facebook is if people started publishing their data AND THEIR FRIENDS PUBLIC DATA outside of Facebook ... Facebook makes money by being a walled garden. Take your data outside Facebook and they have no value.
thanosnose 8y ago
And whose attack dog is the NYTimes? This is the 2nd hitpiece on facebook by the nytimes on the frontpage as of this moment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18462671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18462671
- jaydz 8y ago
  The Times has been on an anti-tech crusade for months now.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    america destroying its own tech companies. these ppl really are 'enemy of the ppl'.
    - jaydz 8y ago
      Jeong and Swisher are the captains of the anti-tech crusade at the Times. Guess the clicks for those Trump articles are drying up.
      - dirkgently 8y ago
        Oops. Looks like I have inadvertently ended up on right wing conspiracy site.
      - rainonmoon 8y ago
        Swisher holding some of the richest people in the world to account for their impact on billions of people isn't anti-tech. But it is telling that "pro-tech" is being conflated here with "pro-Silicon Valley capitalism."
- Novashi 8y ago
  Facebook can stop hitpieces when they learn to not make terrible decisions.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Hah. It would be a hit piece if it were untrue and simply attempting to sway opinion against. Facebook applying for patents on distinctly creepy inferences from photos is hardly a hit piece. It puts it squarely in the category of Facebook bringing it on itself.
imgabe 8y ago
Hmm, Facebook pays firm to dig up dirt on politicians in order to expose them as hypocrites. NY Times then digs up this fact and uses it to expose Facebook as hypocrites. It's hypocrites all the way down, folks.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Nice tu quote!
nonbel 8y ago
>"While senators are no strangers to opposition research — they use it all the time against political rivals — they take a dimmer view when it used against them outside of election season." Why? And how long is "election season" these days? It seems to be almost always.
Sabinus 8y ago
Ah so this is why I saw the Diamond and Silk stuff on the media for a while.
ilovecaching 8y ago
From the HN Guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. Can we please stop with the NYT assassination pieces on Facebook? This piece is barely tangentially related to technology at all, and serves no purpose other than to allow more virtue signalling and hearsay arguments and personal opinions on right and wrong.
Copernicron 8y ago
Good to see that major corporations are now adopting Whataboutism as a strategy. They were probably feeling left out.

89 points by chablent 8y ago

Key takeaways: 1. Before Ms. Sandberg’s Senate testimony, Facebook lobbyists pushed lawmakers to refrain from questioning her about privacy, censorship and other issues, and to stick to election interference. The committee’s chairman, Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, was swayed and warned members to stick to the hearing’s planned topic, The Times reported Wednesday. 2. Facebook had also lobbied for the hearing to include a Google emissary of similar rank to Ms. Sandberg. Mr. Burr invited Larry Page, a Google co-founder, but he did not show up. 3. In an email days before the hearing, a Definers employee pressed a Times reporter to write that Facebook was taking the senators’ concerns seriously while Google was irresponsible for skipping the hearing. 4. The day before the hearing, NTK Network reported that Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, had suggested that Google was possibly a monopoly. 5. Those pieces were just two of at least 11 negative items NTK has posted about Google since late March. Facebook really seems butthurt about Google. Instead of learning from Google about being transpernt on how they use user data, they basically dragged Google in the controversy, and I would say they have been pretty successful.

yeukhon 8y ago
“Instead of learning from Google about being transpernt on how they use user data” I am curious evidences of this. Or are you comparing objectively with the two relative to recent events? Then sure. FB’s been very sketchy all this time with little knowing until the whole election interference and Cambridge scandal went public and viral did people pay attention. But thanks for the takeaways.
- dirkgently 8y ago
  Not sure if I understand you here. Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. They also do not sell user data (that's not their business model). Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. They are happy if you want to take your data and go to someone else - they released takeaway tool more than 10 years ago. Fb, on the other hand, never were trustworthy, even before any of the recent scandals became public. They have had history of changing things around that led to users unknowingly expose their details they thought they had locked down, more than once. They have been caught lying to advertisers about clicks and views. But those finer points are lost when they have successfully dragged Google in the mudbath with their smear campaign, irrespective of the scale or intentions at Google.
  - conradev 8y ago
    > Sure, they have had their share of issues, but I don't think they are systematic or intentional. Or Google is just better at staying out of the spotlight: > Disclosure will likely result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal”, Google policy and legal officials wrote in a memo obtained by the Journal. It “almost guarantees Sundar will testify before Congress”, the memo said, referring to the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai. The disclosure would also invite “immediate regulatory interest”. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-plus-security-breach-wall-street-journal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-pl...
  - Puer 8y ago
    > Google, for all the negative press and bashing they are getting lately, has not hidden what they collect, how they collect. I'm curious what led to you to this conclusion and how you define "hide." What about how they were tracking location information even after you turned off location history??
  - zaphod4prez 8y ago
    Uhhh, I'm gonna have to strongly disagree with you about Google being a "good guy" here. For example, did you know that people at Google can read your email [1]? ...And so can literally hundreds of app makers...[2] That to me is about as flagrant and messed up as I can imagine. If you really trust Google with your data, I recommend you investigate their (very) checkered history a bit more. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-gmail-except-in-all-these-cases-2018-7/ https://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-reading-your-g... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers-to-read-peoples-gmails-report-2018-7?r=UK&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/google-allows-app-developers...
ForrestN 8y ago
Just a polite reminder that using "butthurt" to mean "resentful"or "angry" paints a picture that is often homophobic and nearly always making light of rape. In my opinion, we should try not to normalize its use any further.
- ehsanu1 8y ago
  https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology-of-butthurt https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology...
  - ForrestN 8y ago
    This is incorrect. Derivation doesn’t prove usage. http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-using-the-term-butthurt/ http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-usi...
    - ehsanu1 8y ago
      Does inappropriate adoption of a word necessarily preclude its use in its original form? Example: "autistic". In recent times, this word is sometimes used as an insult, which seems to me to be somewhat offensive to those with the actual syndrome. However, referring to those who do have the syndrome as medically autistic is obviously not offensive. This is a more clear-cut example to make the point that misappropriating a word and giving it secondary connotations in certain contexts does not make the word unfit for use in all cases.
    - spangry 8y ago
      "Essentially, the term is used when someone is upset that someone else has gotten the better or them or beaten them or bested them in some way. That is to say, they dominated them. You know, like when someone is raped." Your source is the blog entry of some self-professed 'angry feminist' making up an etymology and then trying to police everyone's language on that basis. People like this are such insufferable know-it-alls.
- carapace 8y ago
burtonator 8y ago
The issue is that without violating your privacy, Facebook really doesn't have a revenue model.

wpietri 8y ago

I have not closed my account, as I don't want to entirely lose touch with a bunch of people. But I've decided I'm not going to log in more than once a month. I just can't in good conscience let them rent my eyeballs or use my content any more.

Arbalest 8y ago
I've pretty much been running in that mode for a while now (though maybe more on average once per week). It's fine. As long as you don't engage in any commentary on other people's stuff, you naturally gravitate away from checking. The content is usually not that interesting. The moment you write anything there, you get an emotional stake in checking its progress.
r00fus 8y ago
I hope you and all your family are running FB cookie blockers because that's another huge trove of info they can use to target and sell. Shadow accounts for those who don't comply and real accounts for those who login.
grogenaut 8y ago
I can't decide if this is a beautiful troll or what goes for taking a moral stance these days.
burtonator 8y ago
What would really piss off Facebook is if people started publishing their data AND THEIR FRIENDS PUBLIC DATA outside of Facebook ... Facebook makes money by being a walled garden. Take your data outside Facebook and they have no value.

thanosnose 8y ago

And whose attack dog is the NYTimes? This is the 2nd hitpiece on facebook by the nytimes on the frontpage as of this moment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18462671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18462671

jaydz 8y ago
The Times has been on an anti-tech crusade for months now.
- dominotw 8y ago
  america destroying its own tech companies. these ppl really are 'enemy of the ppl'.
  - jaydz 8y ago
    Jeong and Swisher are the captains of the anti-tech crusade at the Times. Guess the clicks for those Trump articles are drying up.
    - dirkgently 8y ago
      Oops. Looks like I have inadvertently ended up on right wing conspiracy site.
    - rainonmoon 8y ago
      Swisher holding some of the richest people in the world to account for their impact on billions of people isn't anti-tech. But it is telling that "pro-tech" is being conflated here with "pro-Silicon Valley capitalism."
Novashi 8y ago
Facebook can stop hitpieces when they learn to not make terrible decisions.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Hah. It would be a hit piece if it were untrue and simply attempting to sway opinion against. Facebook applying for patents on distinctly creepy inferences from photos is hardly a hit piece. It puts it squarely in the category of Facebook bringing it on itself.

imgabe 8y ago

Hmm, Facebook pays firm to dig up dirt on politicians in order to expose them as hypocrites. NY Times then digs up this fact and uses it to expose Facebook as hypocrites. It's hypocrites all the way down, folks.

ucaetano 8y ago
Nice tu quote!

nonbel 8y ago

>"While senators are no strangers to opposition research — they use it all the time against political rivals — they take a dimmer view when it used against them outside of election season." Why? And how long is "election season" these days? It seems to be almost always.

Sabinus 8y ago

Ah so this is why I saw the Diamond and Silk stuff on the media for a while.

ilovecaching 8y ago

From the HN Guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. Can we please stop with the NYT assassination pieces on Facebook? This piece is barely tangentially related to technology at all, and serves no purpose other than to allow more virtue signalling and hearsay arguments and personal opinions on right and wrong.

Copernicron 8y ago

Good to see that major corporations are now adopting Whataboutism as a strategy. They were probably feeling left out.