Hacker News Reader

Comment by l9k | Hacker News Reader

At this point, though, such a public-relations strategy feels dated. On balance, the celebrity of even the most caricatured CEO (Zuckerberg) appears to be a net positive for his company.

I disagree totally with that point. The "superstar CEO" Zuckerberg is now ridiculed, hated, and negatively "meme-ed". He is now the face of censorship (for some) and a laissezfaire strategy threatening democracies (for others).

Even the previous paragraph stated: "Bill Gates had become a media caricature during Microsoft Corp.’s three-year antitrust lawsuit".

Page staying in the dark only generated this one article, not a real national scandal. 99% of people don't know him and won't know him after that no-show. Google's reputation is untouched.

Only loss is for the Senators not getting the spotlight.

View on HN

Bloomberg fail to acknowledge their clear bias: no news (Page absent) means fewer clicks. Regardless of whether the strategy is good or bad for Google, a high-profile Page generating lots of sightings and rumors and virtual stalking stories would be much better for the media.

I think you see this reality generating a lot of the pressure against the "lie low" strategy during scandals.

I'm always amazed about the amount of hatred directed at anyone who is in the public spotlight. There is a whole Internet mob out there, and it doesn't even matter where the fame comes from. If you're prominent in any way it seems that the best option is to seclude yourself and avoid the public. At least that's what I would do, I guess it's a personal preference in the end.

A large segment of the population is wrapped up in consuming celebrity culture. Most of us will never know or meet these people and have little reason to know the particulars of their lives but they are a marketable product due to human nature.

i agree, in this time of outrage culture, i don't know why anybody at the centre of any controversy gives it oxygen. anything you say is another story. some would say you need to get your point of view across but i'd say people have made up their mind anyway.

say nothing and the media and public move on to the next story.

The point of political discourse is never to change your opponent's mind, it's to sway the undecided people to align with you instead of them.

That's why it's so adversarial.

> The point of political discourse is never to change your opponent's mind, it's to sway the undecided people to align with you instead of them.

In the US, it's mostly not about that, either; it's about creating enthusiasm in those already aligned with you or dampening it in those aligned with your opponent.

(Pretending to try to sway the opposition but using arguments which primarily resonate with your base so it just makes your base more angry with the opposition for their obstinacy is a common tactic, here.)

> Page staying in the dark only generated this one article

Eh, it’s going to generate nasty side effects. Google spends a lot on lobbying. This kneecaps those efforts. That’s bad news for a host of broader issues, including net neutrality.

When has public attention ever been beneficial for corporate lobbying efforts?

When the thing they're lobbying for has broad public support.

The real loss is Senators no longer trusting Alphabet/Google after this snub.

You really don't want to turn the government against you.

Please. All that stuff happens behind the scenes anyway

Half of Congress is the House (and 80% by head count). They kind of enjoy seeing Senators get snubbed, since Senators so often personify the stereotype of arrogance.

> The real loss is Senators no longer trusting Alphabet/Google after this snub.

The Senators that wanted Larry or Sundar to voluntarily submit to and draw more media attention to their spectacle of abuse directed at the firm (and others in the industry) obviously didn't trust Google in the first place, and the rest know the game and aren't going to be effected by this except perhaps by realizing that Google's leadership isn't completely braindead politically.

There was no possible net upside for Google participating in the charade of a hearing, and the committee rejecting Google's offer of the most qualified person to address the substantive questions notionally at issue in response to the voluntary invitation for participation was an unmistakable signal that that was the case.

> You really don't want to turn the government against you.

You also don't want to voluntarily cooperate with the parts of the government that have already turned against you and are trying to scapegoat you to build support for policies hostile to your interests.

Law enforcement isn't the only part of government that can seemingly innocently invite you to talk with malign intent, and it's not the only part of government you should decline voluntary cooperation with when you don't have good reason to believe that the intent of the invitation is aligned with your interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com