Clever PR: Facebook bends a non-story to their favor | Hacker News Reader

Clever PR: Facebook bends a non-story to their favor

rexriepe.com

72 pointsrriepe18 comments

Either it's a non-story, and so it doesn't matter. Or it is a story, and they are being proactive and going out of their way to solve the issue before it gets bigger. Either way, it can't hurt: nobody is saying that they are hurting their users here.

However, due to the number of comments and stories in recent months I've seen, it is certainly appearing to be a real problem (regardless of reality). So, I don't think it's that bad for Facebook to respond to what a least some people — including, it seems, at least a few on HN — think is a realissue?

They can't win with some people. Either they ignore it and those people say they don't care about privacy, or they rattle the sabre (for their users' benefit, for once) and people say they're posturing or spinning a nothing into something positive for them. I guess it's the PR department's job to do this but I get the impression that for some they're the new big company that you can love to hate.

Personally I think it's better that they said it, whether the reality of these increasingly common stories is actually so common or not.

It's not a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario at all.

There is no downside to Facebook saying no asking for passwords for interviews. It makes them look good and justifies their walled garden approach.

If Facebook truly cared about privacy, they would actually listen to the requests such as the ability to delete ALL your data as well as the ability to toggle privacy settings for all fields instead of the ones Facebook deems acceptable.

I should've explained what I saw as the "amateur" PR move: Collecting the data and saying it wasn't a real problem. (Or perhaps ignoring it, but arguably they've been doing that.)

That solution takes time, resources and doesn't necessarily alleviate fears.

Instead, they added to the story in a way that did alleviate fears, all while not wasting any resources.

But I agree with your assessment: It's a good move whether or not my take on it is correct.

It's not so much clever PR as it is common sense. If there's a potential problem on the horizon, nip it in the bud.

Facebook isn't really in the PR game - there have been enough catastrophes for that theory to be blitzed. This was simply something they could release a statement about and not have to worry about doing anything.

Most clever PR looks a whole lot like common sense. "If there's a potential problem on the horizon, nip it in the bud," about perfectly sums up crisis comms, a large part of PR.

They're absolutely in the PR game. Any high-profile company is. I think they're getting better at it, due in part to those catastrophes.

I should note that PR isn't a bad thing, even though it gets a lot of heat in tech circles. When done right, PR acts as the conscience of an organization.

If you want a comparison of how Facebook cares (or doesn't) overall, look at how they changed people's privacy settings multiple times without notification, and continue to make changes without users permission, etc..

It's also not a coincidence that this story broke the same day Facebook tried to assert trademarks over terms like "book" and "wall".

This guy provides no evidence that it is a non-story. I've heard plenty of stories, though the ones that bother me more are abuses by teachers and school administrators. Either way it's good to get it out there that it is not OK.

Although I think I agree that it was a smart move from Facebook to say that, I'm not sure if it isn't really a growing problem. We need more data to determine that.

False.

Facebook's primary goal is to get its users to share more and more over time (see Zuck's law).

Stories such as this--watch what you share on Facebook irregardless of your privacy settings--are detrimental to that goal. They must put the kibosh on such behavior fast and early.

I think their PR department made a drastically clever move. Why is that sinister? I didn't get the sense that FB spun the story--someone in the HR department of that company messed up. When the story broke FB knocked their legal response out of the park.

Is facebook the knight in shining armor? nope. Did they make the right call? you betcha.

It is also about the gesture though, I can't imagine Microsoft saying something like this about sharing Windows Live logins.

Plus they send a strong signal out to companies, even if it's a loose threat the message is clear: Don't do this.

I'd be surprised if they had to.

A Windows Live login, like a Google account or Yahoo ID is tied to an email address. Asking for access for your personal email during an interview process should be obviously off-limits for even the most clueless companies. Among other things, your email would contain communications with other potential employers.

Remember that story with the smear campaign against Google? I wonder if, in the same spirit, some young lad will come forward to claim he was hired from facebook to make up these stories...

Well i agree,facebook get to play privacy champion.

Most of these stories are faked. It's becoming pretty evident that most stories put out by the news media today are either faked or they are grossly distorted beyond belief. Media today grabs alot of ideas from corporate PR firms that need ways to distribute marketing, press and political items quickly and to make them viral. Stories that gain that "viral" status become authoritative without actually having any basis in fact. With today's internet one can quickly source the actual underlying story from local news sources - if the story is not outright fake - and see this is the case. Good observation from the blogger...

I'd love to know when we crossed the threshold of: Trust, but verify to "Most of these stories are faked."

"Most" stories aren't faked, sorry to tell you. But I am in agreement that this author is likely spot on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com