4 ms·

While promising "gotcha" revelations there's really nothing surprising or even very controversial here. I'm at the end of a many decades long career in high tec

While promising "gotcha" revelations there's really nothing surprising or even very controversial here. I'm at the end of a many decades long career in high tech ranging from founding multiple startups to spending the last decade reporting to the C-level at a major tech company in the valley. I've participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work. Lobbyists are just another form of salesperson or relationship manager outside of conventional sales. Like hiring PR firms (another form of influence sales), they claim to have done shit they actually didn't do. They may have been there at the time it happened but their causal impact was nowhere near what they claim. Even when not exaggerating to get a job, these people wildly over-estimate their own impact. The headline would more accurately be: "Candidate in competitive job interview for role in influence-sales exaggerates accomplishments and confidently over-promises future results." (Edit to add: I was in a public company. There was no shortage of candidates (both people and firms) willing to at least imply they would or could do some fairly shady shit. We would thank them for their time and never call them back. While they may collect their fee or paycheck, my boss can go to jail and, at best, I'll only get insta-fired for even participating in the selection process, losing all my unvested options, no one-year severance/benefits. The downside cost of even being near shady shit in a high-profile successful public company is personally catastrophic in the millions of dollars and a reputation hit to the company that wipes billions off our market cap overnight - and it only has to be the slightest bit true. Sure, you might get away with sleazy shit and get ahead one time. BUT it's not a reliably repeatable pattern and big public companies are built on real revenue and results over time. It's no different than PR. There are sleazy media outlets and/or journalists who can be unfairly influenced for $$$ but they tend to be minor league and not very valuable. At most, spending a lot on effective lobbying or PR gets you access to make your case. And often, you can spend a ton and not even get that much.)

autokad 5y ago
there's also the poor ethics of greenpeace lying about a job interview as well as releasing that content. way to stay classy greenpeace. Also pretty sure that's illegal in many countries.
- gruez 5y ago
  >way to stay classy greenpeace. That's a legitimate strategy by activist organizations. >there’s the PETA Principle: the more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about. >A rape that obviously happened? Shove it in people’s face and they’ll admit it’s an outrage, just as they’ll admit factory farming is an outrage. But they’re not going to talk about it much. There are a zillion outrages every day, you’re going to need more than that to draw people out of their shells. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
  - blooalien 5y ago
    > “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” … P.T. Barnum > “There’s only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” … Oscar Wilde
  - colinb 5y ago
    > That's a legitimate strategy by activist organizations. Maybe. But you’d better be sure you would still feel that way if the ‘activist organisation’ is espousing views you find abhorrent.
  - lliamander 5y ago
    I'm not sure the takeaway from that essay is that PETA's tactics are "legitimate". Arguably they are effective (at least in the short term) but it remains to be seen whether the cost of such tactics on society are worth it.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    So Project Veritas is ok too. Cool, Glad you can agree on that.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > So Project Veritas is ok too. Cool, Glad you can agree on that. I believe the actual issue with Project Veritas is the highly deceptive edits they make to their targets' statements, not that they falsely identified themselves to get their targets to talk. It's totally consistent to be opposed to the former and not the latter. Also, your statement is a non sequitur. It's like responding someone who says it's fine to be a vegetarian by saying they must be fine with Hilter and his genocides (since he was a vegetarian too). Sometimes you can trip people up with statements like that, but it's dumb, doesn't prove anything, and makes you look like an ass.
fisf 5y ago
I agree, there is nothing inherently surprising here. Should this be illegal? Not generally. Should it be more transparent who lobbies for what? Absolutely. In my opinion meeting notes of politicians / lobbyist ought to be a matter of public record. Also: is lobbying for policies that directly cause environmental damage and kill people morally corrupt and evil. Yes.
seph-reed 5y ago
This assessment can go both ways. The fact that he would think these "brags" are going to make him look good shows how bad the intentions here are. Whether or not these are things he has done, they are things he (and the company) are trying to do.
pera 5y ago
I have no idea how you can conclude that this lobbyist is exaggerating his accomplishments, specially considering his career and what Exxon have been doing since the 70s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...). I guess one could claim that there is nothing "new" into this story, but how can you possibly say that there is nothing controversial regarding being part of a massive decades-long disinformation and anti-environmental campaign?
- underseacables 5y ago
  Well it seems the claims that the lobbyist is making about his contacts with Congress have been denied by the elected officials. They wouldn’t lie would they?
jjoonathan 5y ago
> nothing surprising I'm upset, not surprised. Does evil suddenly become totally OK and cool just because I know it exists? Of course not. > or even very controversial here Hard disagree. The greenwashing faction makes a very big deal of having genuine positive intentions. They got caught in a lie. They got caught so hard that they had to acknowledge the controversy and double down on their position. We have an attack and a counterattack -- blood is running hot. Not only is it controversial, it's maximally controversial. > I've participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work. > The headline would more accurately No, your proposal is not more accurate, but it is more in line with company interests. It works overtime to draw attention away from the inferences that can be drawn from the evidence (i.e. that the greenwashing is a lie and that companies are actively involved in self-interested efforts to curtail environmental efforts) and makes every effort to push the blame down to the individual level. How convenient. Nice try.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> nothing surprising > I'm upset, not surprised. Does evil suddenly become totally OK and cool just because I know it exists? Of course not. Also, nothing surprising [to someone who's "participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work"] != nothing surprising [to the general public]. Also, it's annoying when someone deflects a statement (implicit or otherwise) about what ought to be with a statement about what is.

autokad 5y ago

there's also the poor ethics of greenpeace lying about a job interview as well as releasing that content. way to stay classy greenpeace. Also pretty sure that's illegal in many countries.

gruez 5y ago
>way to stay classy greenpeace. That's a legitimate strategy by activist organizations. >there’s the PETA Principle: the more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about. >A rape that obviously happened? Shove it in people’s face and they’ll admit it’s an outrage, just as they’ll admit factory farming is an outrage. But they’re not going to talk about it much. There are a zillion outrages every day, you’re going to need more than that to draw people out of their shells. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage...
- blooalien 5y ago
  > “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” … P.T. Barnum > “There’s only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” … Oscar Wilde
- colinb 5y ago
  > That's a legitimate strategy by activist organizations. Maybe. But you’d better be sure you would still feel that way if the ‘activist organisation’ is espousing views you find abhorrent.
- lliamander 5y ago
  I'm not sure the takeaway from that essay is that PETA's tactics are "legitimate". Arguably they are effective (at least in the short term) but it remains to be seen whether the cost of such tactics on society are worth it.
- underseacables 5y ago
  So Project Veritas is ok too. Cool, Glad you can agree on that.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > So Project Veritas is ok too. Cool, Glad you can agree on that. I believe the actual issue with Project Veritas is the highly deceptive edits they make to their targets' statements, not that they falsely identified themselves to get their targets to talk. It's totally consistent to be opposed to the former and not the latter. Also, your statement is a non sequitur. It's like responding someone who says it's fine to be a vegetarian by saying they must be fine with Hilter and his genocides (since he was a vegetarian too). Sometimes you can trip people up with statements like that, but it's dumb, doesn't prove anything, and makes you look like an ass.

fisf 5y ago

I agree, there is nothing inherently surprising here. Should this be illegal? Not generally. Should it be more transparent who lobbies for what? Absolutely. In my opinion meeting notes of politicians / lobbyist ought to be a matter of public record. Also: is lobbying for policies that directly cause environmental damage and kill people morally corrupt and evil. Yes.

seph-reed 5y ago

This assessment can go both ways. The fact that he would think these "brags" are going to make him look good shows how bad the intentions here are. Whether or not these are things he has done, they are things he (and the company) are trying to do.

pera 5y ago

I have no idea how you can conclude that this lobbyist is exaggerating his accomplishments, specially considering his career and what Exxon have been doing since the 70s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...). I guess one could claim that there is nothing "new" into this story, but how can you possibly say that there is nothing controversial regarding being part of a massive decades-long disinformation and anti-environmental campaign?

underseacables 5y ago
Well it seems the claims that the lobbyist is making about his contacts with Congress have been denied by the elected officials. They wouldn’t lie would they?

jjoonathan 5y ago

> nothing surprising I'm upset, not surprised. Does evil suddenly become totally OK and cool just because I know it exists? Of course not. > or even very controversial here Hard disagree. The greenwashing faction makes a very big deal of having genuine positive intentions. They got caught in a lie. They got caught so hard that they had to acknowledge the controversy and double down on their position. We have an attack and a counterattack -- blood is running hot. Not only is it controversial, it's maximally controversial. > I've participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work. > The headline would more accurately No, your proposal is not more accurate, but it is more in line with company interests. It works overtime to draw attention away from the inferences that can be drawn from the evidence (i.e. that the greenwashing is a lie and that companies are actively involved in self-interested efforts to curtail environmental efforts) and makes every effort to push the blame down to the individual level. How convenient. Nice try.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> nothing surprising > I'm upset, not surprised. Does evil suddenly become totally OK and cool just because I know it exists? Of course not. Also, nothing surprising [to someone who's "participated in the process of hiring high-end firms to do lobbying work"] != nothing surprising [to the general public]. Also, it's annoying when someone deflects a statement (implicit or otherwise) about what ought to be with a statement about what is.