5 ms·
That doesn't seem likely to me. If you want to let the truth be known, but you feel so much under the gun that you issue not just a minimum-compliance false sta
by leoc 13y ago
That doesn't seem likely to me. If you want to let the truth be known, but you feel so much under the gun that you issue not just a minimum-compliance false statement but a fulsome one under your own name, would you really feel safe contacting a bunch of other Silicon Valley CEOs to co-ordinate such a subtle but intentional secret message?
- jlgreco 13y agoThe last part in each, the part about transparency, makes me think that it is possible they all decided to co-ordinate an intentional not secret message: they think there should be more transparency.
- leoc 13y agoSure: it seems possible that these statements are co-ordinated, but instead of being false or deceptive statements co-ordinated by a three-letter agency they're truthful or largely truthful statements co-ordinated by the tech companies' PR departments, and the close similarities are designed to amplify a message the companies agreed among themselves. Of course, under the circumstances the similarity looks suspicious, but it seems possible that could be an unintentional blunder rather than a genuine sign of guilt.
- quackerhacker 13y agoAgreed...unlikely. But I will say this jokingly...if they were coordinating, they might not be using Verizon to do so. ;)
- jfoster 13y agoActually they wouldn't necessarily need to coordinate. If Google posted first and Zuck wanted to cause this phenomena, the facebook post just needs to mirror the Google one. No communication with Google required.