Re: You can go to the bathroom whenever you want at Microsoft | Hacker News Reader

Re: You can go to the bathroom whenever you want at Microsoft

microturfing.com

170 pointsFraaJad73 comments

I think it's unfortunate that a moderator decided to unkill this. It's not just inappropriate for HN due to content, but also because it's a mean-spirited hate piece with bits of misogyny and homophobia thrown in. It's fine if someone wants to rebut the article (which seemed like a pretty straightforward interview to me), but the rebuttal that gets promoted to HN should have been more civil.

I agree. I flagged this article and I'm very surprised it came back from the dead. Doesn't seem to be in keeping with the usual vibe here at all.

"Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation." (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) + "Hey. My name is Ariel and I'm a total whore...for Microsoft that is!" = flag

I think you're taking it out of context - I think it's meant for things that are said on HN itself, not in articles linked to from HN.

Articles linked should be better than the average HN comment. This one was noise, not signal.

I know the guideline is for comments. I'm not interpreting it legalistically, I'm interpreting its intent: to shape the culture of the site.

It wasn't a straightforward interview. It was a subtle form of astroturfing.

PR is all about context. They try to dissociate the site from Microsoft (visually) to imply these are disinterested opinions. And in particular, that there's this cute young emo woman who wanders the halls of Microsoft entranced with the dreamy, rebellious hackers. The subtext, if you're a heterosexual male programmer, is that working for MS gets you the kinds of attention you've always wanted. And that real rebels ought to be working for Microsoft.

All absurd, which is why they had to be subtle about it. If the sexual innuendo is said out loud -- as in a parody -- you then realize what's happened. It's debatable whether the tone is HN-appropriate, but I thought it made legitimate points, despite or perhaps because of the crudeness.

Will I get downvoted if I'll point out that you can see in the picture here: http://www.microspotting.com/about that she isn't even that hot?

In my opinion, if you can't resist the temptation to click that link, you lose your right to downvote it.

Well, I downvoted you for making her looks an HN issue. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm sure she's attractive and talented and a bunch of other things besides, and the whole interview is probably entirely honest. But she's playing a role in a script that someone else wrote.

But she's playing a role in a script that someone else wrote.

There are many people here interested in entrepreneurship, and part of entrepreneurship is creating a certain image about yourself. The way I read your comment, is that you are criticizing the fact that she is playing a role. How many people here who have started a company are very careful about the image you're creating for your company? Microsoft is no different.

We all play roles. It's a fundamental part of human interaction. I think the gripe here is that the role is externally and structurally imposed rather than internally motivated.

That's the same as griping over advertising. While I don't know the true motivation of the post, it certainly can be viewed as a form of advertising, advertising for employment within Microsoft. "Hey! Look how great it is to work here. People can achieve things no matter where they come from."

I don't think people are really criticizing Microsoft for image-mongering as such. I think they're getting nailed for the clumsiness of their recent attempts (like the puke ad) to outsource the development of a happening-new-image that has no connection to who or what they really are, and just sort of plaster it on and hope that anyone will be fooled by it.

Sure, corporate images are idealized and sanitized and in that sense false, but the better ones still stem from the underlying reality. Is Google purely benign? Hardly, yet "don't be evil" does express something real in their culture. Are Apple and their users members of a superior race? Hardly, yet they have produced superior designs.

Microsoft's problem is that their truly distinctive quality over the years -- their competitive ruthlessness -- doesn't lend itself to positive marketing. A campaign based on something like "We screw people. Hey, it's just business." isn't likely to win favor. Maybe it says something about Microsoft that they have trouble finding a positive image that isn't an obvious marketing concoction.

>a happening-new-image that has no connection to who or what they really are

Oh? And what is your justification for that statement? Have you worked there? I have, and I am actually surprised at how cool and fresh some of the stuff MSFT is doing is.

what is your justification for that statement

Longstanding observation of their products, behavior, and culture. But really, all you need to look at is the painful artificiality of the ads themselves, including the OP.

Is this your argument?

Entrepreneurship is good. PR is necessary for entrepreneurship. Astroturfing is a PR tactic. Therefore this tactic is good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_mi...

No. If anything, the comment was more along the lines of how ironic I find it that people bash Microsoft for doing many of the same things they themselves do.

I think that you're not properly distinguishing between the article and the blog as a whole. Every HN member who read this article saw "microspotting" in the URL and knew that it was associated with Microsoft (or a rabid fan). We took that into account when voting.

In any case, no matter how astroturf-y the original article was, it does not justify voting this one up.

Microsoft, in the pursuit of rebuilding their image, needs to lie. MS can not be all things to all people. I'm not trying to sound cynical, but Microsoft doesn't need to worry about actually satisfying what people want. MS only needs to make a profit. That's business, and profit is a very powerful mantra.

The response, which is the subject of this thread, get's some things right, some wrong. I don't really care too much. I just love the internet, and the free speech that it enables, encourages the public to respond to the company bullhorn, and have their own voice.

It pains me that this story exists and that your misogynist comment got so many upvotes.

Subtle form of astroturfing? It took about 10 seconds and some reading comprehension for me to understand that the site (and the interview) was sponsored by MS. And your subtext? I totally disagree. Just because it's a female writer (with a picture! Oh my!), it implies that she's some sort of developer concubine? WTF? If it was an attractive guy, would you start tossing out gay jokes? If it was an older woman, would you call her a cougar? Or are you suggesting that they hired her because she was cute over more-qualified male candidates?

There are 120 zillion stories on what it's like to work at Google, and presumably many of these are launched and shaped by Google PR folks.

You could take the same tone towards them: "The subtle implication is that Google people are buried in gourmet food, don't have managers, cash our as zillionaires in a year or two, go kayaking on their lunch hour all the time, and truly spend 20% of their work time on whatever they feel like."

Sure there's a goal here-- to show that MS is cooler than most people think it is. Whether that's true or not is subjective (but I know a lot of pretty cool folks who actually LOVE(d) working at Microsoft).

I'm working at Microsoft this summer, and it really is a fun place to work, especially compared to Goldman Sachs and AMD (where I've spent previous summers). People work whatever hours they feel like, they have fun (my team has "Scotch Friday" every few weeks, for example), and our boss is extremely bright (and amusing).

I haven't worked for Google, so maybe that's even better, I don't know - but from what I've seen so far, there's nothing not to like about working for Microsoft.

For what it's worth, just about everyone I've met will openly admit that the company culture was very different 15 years ago, and earned it some (deserved) negative reputation...but that's really not the company I've seen this summer. Anecdotally: I'm working on the Office web apps, and we fully support Firefox and Safari as well as IE.

> the company culture was very different 15 years ago, and earned it some (deserved) negative reputation

Market-wise, I perceived Microsoft as kicking ass during the mid 90's with products that were crushing the competition, whereas nowadays I see them as floundering ineffectively.

If the workers weren't happy then, but are happy now, how does that fit with my perceptions?

I never said the workers weren't happy then - I said the company was a different place. People externally were less happy about Microsoft, because it was, as you note, more aggressive.

I take exception to the accusation of misogyny, but perhaps I wasn't very clear. I'm sure that Ariel is a competent and intelligent person, and probably capable of a lot more than puff PR blogging for moribund corporations. I'm sure she put in an honest and significant amount of work setting up the site and the interview and so on. In fact, her competence is essential. The whole point of the exercise is to cast a character who can convey authenticity.

It's like reality show casting. It's not scripted. The people are real. But they're in a role, to create a particular kind of scene. And the scene they probably wanted to create was "attractive+nerdy girl runs a fansite about our our awesomely cool developers and our cool corporate culture".

Yeah, probably most smart people know that it's really an MS site. But branding exists for a reason -- it works unconsciously. If anything my comment isn't misogynist, it's anti-straight-male. I'm tired of how predictable men in our industry are.

As for Google PR -- it deserves to be satirized too. Their thing is to have developers directly address the public, in relatively plainspoken videos. This entails yet more subtle distortions (mostly by omission), but it's not as flawed as the Microspotting approach.

"And the scene they probably wanted to create was "attractive+nerdy girl runs a fansite about our our awesomely cool developers and our cool corporate culture"."

Are you sure? You're assigning motivation here. What if she wasn't attractive? What if she was a guy? What if she was Robert Scoble (who got paid to interview folks at Microsoft, too)? What scene did they want to create with Robert Scoble?

The motivation to me is pretty clear: People think MS is Bill Gates or (much worse) Steve Ballmer. Let's interview all sorts of folks here so people can see that we've got a pretty cool family.

It's not subtle, but you can't pretend it is to prop up the complicated motivations you've created. First sentence, upper right: "Hey. My name is Ariel and I'm the person you thought would never work at MSFT." The about page talks about microsoft. The primary nav has an Apply link, for god's sake. Lots of companies create company-culture/jobs/recruiting sites that are branded in a different/fun way (note: my first startup was recruiting software, so I know the industry).

I thought neilk's analysis was sensitive and intriguing, and it struck me as based on knowledge (edit: I mean knowledge of PR, not of the MS piece). Whether he's right or wrong, he obviously wasn't being disrespectful (witness his restraint in response to your rather inflammatory first sentence). I think highly of most of your posts too, but you have some nerve accusing him of misogyny when Ariel's photo depicts her in a t-shirt that says "My job gives me special feelings" and the text talks about her "creeping around campus".

I find this objection lame. Satire isn't supposed to be civil. It isn't supposed to be non-misogynist or non-homophobic either. It's supposed to be fucking ruthless. It's supposed to speak the unspoken truth about something, irrespective of decorum.

Obviously not every shot is going to hit the mark, and the ones that miss often seem rude, crude, or both. But when satire hits the bullseye it transcends all of those categories because of the power of truth-telling. It has been a valuable part of civil discourse, in the larger sense, for as long as civil discourse has existed.

As for this particular attempt at satire, I think it hit the target in a few places (in terms of nailing what's going on behind the original propaganda), and the rest of it reads like pretty much every other Zed Shaw blog post. So, not completely successful, but not too bad for an instant knockoff. And the original piece was so asking for it (did you read her t-shirt?) It would be interesting if other parodies pop up.

Which unspoken truths are those? That the author has a problem with the idea of anal sex? That he (for reference: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/423037071_85d564748a.jpg) thinks the interviewee has stereotypical facial hair?

Zed's no Mark Twain. He took something that was almost a perfect self-parody and then made it less funny. When I read his version I get the same uneasy feeling I get when I worked with some guys from Long Island that would download Howard Stern episodes and listen to them on repeat all day. I wonder why he bothered to expend any energy on this. It's like making fun of retarded people.

Going for the shock is cheap. It's possible to do satire without going for the shock.

And yet, great satire frequently seems to go for shock. See: A Modest Proposal, 1984, quite a few of Mark Twain's short stories, Chaucer, etc.

This write-up is nowhere near comparable to those works.

A Modest Proposal discussed in a frank tone the idea of selling babies as food for money.

1984 showed an ultra-totalitarian state through the eyes of someone used to it. Sure the torture scenes were ruthless, but not "shock" satire.

This is something that could've been written up by an angry fourteen year old and simply calls everyone either a dick or a whore. No eloquence, nothing subtle, nothing new.

1984 was certainly "shock" at the time it was written. Since then many of the concepts have simply become so commonplace as to be unremarkable.

And I'm certainly not claiming that this is great literature, merely providing counterexamples to the idea that "shock is cheap".

There's a distinction between the meaning behind what you say, and how you say it. Trying to shock people through your "how" is cheap.

That's a different meaning of shock. The shock in A Modest Proposal doesn't read like "I have no self control" or "Look! A drunk in the gutter."

A Modest Proposal is exactly what I was not talking about.

This thread is already old, but it just popped into my head that a first-rate example of the above is South Park. They "go for shock" more often and more intensely than just about anyone ever has; even I find their vulgarity hard to take sometimes and my tolerance for this kind of thing is pretty high. But they've produced some of the greatest satire of our time, the kind that (at their best) is so good it can make your jaw drop. So while it's true that satire doesn't have to be like this, much of the best over the centuries has: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rabelaisian.

And for the record, while I never implied that Zed's parody of Ariel was great or even good satire (merely an attempt at it), yes I am comparing South Park to Rabelais.

"P.S. I don’t think she’s a whore because she’s a woman, I think she’s a whore because she’s in marketing. It’s important to understand the distinction." http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-18.html

I find it amusing that the best viral marketeer I have seen says "she’s a whore because she’s in marketing".

Just as saying “no offense“ does not immediately render a comment inoffensive; stating that his comments should not be construed as misogyny, does not negate the fact his comments really are misogynistic.

I don‘t want to get all politically-correct here, but are we really going to pretend that the word “whore” has no gender related connotations? When you use a word, you have to take all the luggage that comes with it, that is just the way language works.

I am not a native speaker so please forgive me for a silly question. Can the word "whore" not be used in English when referring to a male prostitute? What word would you suggest instead which would convey the same meaning without the misogynistic connotations? Thanks.

I think "whore" has evolved somewhat to basically mean anyone who will do whatever it takes to get something. There is the term "man whore" but that's more used for males who are sexually promiscuous.

God I sound way too old writing that.

Zed seems to me to be using the word "whore" in a gender-neutral manner to describe anyone involved in this marketing campaign. On the other hand, I do find his derogatory use of the word "pussy" to be possibly misogynistic, but that's not so much a matter of his misogyny but a subconscious misogyny present in much of the male segment of American society.

As well, I think it's unfair to Zed to assume that any apparent misogyny present in this is a result of him being a misogynist as opposed to the possibility that it is intended to establish a tone that matches what he believes to be the feelings of the people involved in creating the marketing campaign he is ridiculing.

I think this is officially the sign of the reddit-ization of Hacker News. Pathetic.

Bitching will not save you. Go to the new page and vote up stuff you like.

Voting is no match for the tyranny of the majority. (Look at how well it worked for California; gay marriage is illegal, tax increases are illegal, and the state is bankrupt. Sometimes, you need to elect a trusted representative that can balance all the issues at once.)

California is bankrupt because of out of control government spending and bureaucracy costs. The "majority" is at fault to the extent they have tended to vote themselves a free lunch. But the problem is primarily parasitic special interests in and around the government, so your parallel doesn't really work.

But the problem is primarily parasitic special interests in and around the government, so your parallel doesn't really work.

Whenever I see the words "special interests", I immediately want to know which special interests in particular you're complaining about. The words (rightly) have a bad connotation, but I don't often see a lot of agreement about which specific interests are causing trouble.

Government employee unions is #1 on the list. California government employees make about twice what equivalent private sector workers do and retire 20 years earlier.

Good answer.

Voting will not save anyone. A simple rant can now get to the top _and_ get unflagged. I don't get on HN to read about how everyone in Microsoft is a dick and everyone in marketing is a whore.

The thing I love about HN: The original post was up-modded 88 points and has over 60 comments that are actually very interesting debate about elements brought up by that submission. There's a few folks pointing out the astroturfing suspicion.

"On Topic: ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity"

I agree with you. This submission isn't of the type I come to Hacker News to view.

On similar sites, the original post would have never made it to the front page and the comments on both would have been only about astroturfing and Microsoft hatred. ...Which is why I don't comment or waste time reading the comments on those similar sites.

From the parody: "I'm probably some failed art student who couldn't get a job on Cap-Hill..."

Right, because it takes such awesome credentials to land a job at the bars and restaurants in Seattle...

A lot of Microsofties are insanely passionate about the company. I used to be one, and shared their fervor for quite a while. When they say that they want to "change the world," they really mean it for better or worse.

Now excuse me while I go launder my Decemberists t-shirt in preparation for the Death Cab concert tonight. ;-)

(capitol hill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill,_Seattle)

WTF was that? I tried reading twice and I still don't understand what it's about. The comments here are quite inflamed but they don't explain anything. Anyone care to enlighten me?

--EDIT--

Never mind, I red what this is a response to. It's sad, the original was such a parody of what it was trying to be, mocking it is like kicking someone who is already down.

And mod me down but why this any of this on HN?

Could you explain, because I am not understanding any of it (except that Zed Shaw seems to be involved somehow - did he hack a Wordpress Blog???). Not that I read much of the actual site - I did not understand why I should, as it seemed unappealing.

Zed is a dick, film at 11.

There exists an astroturf MS campaign to convince people that the cool kids now work at MS. The cool kids being self thought and with spiky orange hair.

Like almost all MS advertising it is terribly cheesy. The main point seems to be that at MS you DON'T have to ask for permission to go the bathroom.

While there are places that do track you that closely, fortunately they are few and MS is not in competition with them. A gas station is mentioned, but MS is not competing to hire gas station attendees. In short it's a TERRIBLE attempt to be cool.

Even though this MS campaign is quite successful at being a mockery, Zed felt the need to also mock it. Much like kicking a man who's already down, it's not clear this is as funny or smart as Zed seems to think it is.

Never the less Zed created an intentional parody of something which was already an unintentional parody.

He also threw the word "whore" in for good measure, but not because one of the people involved is a girl, but because she's in marketing, that's according to Zed.

Thanks for the information. I have come to the conclusion that Zed thinks too complicated for me to follow his lines of thought.

I like the intent but it needs more meat and a little bit more of a wind-up - as a joke, it's all punchline.

Yeah, but it's here and part of the conversation, mere hours after the original -- that counts for something. True, it's not sparkling literary parody, but more like a timely snappy comeback. Sites like Twitter and HN make this sort of riposte possible, so now it's one option for making a point.

That's a good point. Quick and thorough response that if not for reading the content looked incredibly like the original. Not difficult to do "technically", but then, I didn't do it so who am I to talk?

That said, a properly placed profanity can add a punch and shock the reader ... that effect is lost when profanity is in virtually every sentence ... and shit.

Ah...

It would have helped if I had known there was original... I'm sure it's "everywhere" but I'd never heard of it...

I know meta-discussion isn't entirely welcome on HN, but nevertheless, I feel a need to express my disappointment that this article was (apparently) undeaded. Whichever mod is responsible, please try to understand why so many of us flagged this article in the first place and don't undead lowbrow flamebait in the future. HN is supposed to be above this sort of article.

What happened to the don't post flame topic rules? Surely Zed's blog post would have been a better entry path at the very least.

There's a lot of people and companies in the world I don't care for, for whatever reason. But I try to never put anyone down unless it's necessary to achieve something more important. So I'd put down Soviet Communism because I'd like to see a freer, happier Russia, but I'm not going to waste my life putting down XYZ Ice Cream Parlor / Software Company / Whatever for doing something I dislike.

It's fashionable and easy to score a few points putting down McDonalds or Microsoft or whatever, and I used to when I was younger. I mean, it's so easy to put down McDonalds, and McD's really is legitimately garbage. But what's to gain from it? It just takes time away from me doing some science, doing some business, connecting with people I do like, reading, writing, painting, lifting weights, playing golf, going to a museum, having sex, swimming, sitting in a park, having a coffee, whatever. I don't need or want the short, easy points and bond that come with assessing my disgust/superiority/whatever over other people and organizations. Time is too precious to spend doing that.

A response to criticisms of astroturfing by the Microspotting writer:

http://www.codexon.com/posts/the-sad-state-of-microsoft-adve...

I love this! This is great! But I wonder from which marketing department this one come from.

blasdel's link above has Zed Shaw taking claim for it -

You know what’s great about the Internet? When you see something like this obviously astroturfed bullshit ad from Microsoft you can easily parody the hell out of it.

So I did and I’m pretty sure that will set the internets on fire. Again.

Zed Shaw's marketing department of course!

Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm a fan. I'm a fan of anyone who knows what they're fucking talking about, actually.

That MS site is embarrassing to even look at.

<quote>That MS site is embarrassing to even look at.</quote>

I am just appalled that they believe that people who are ostensibly targeted by this campaign are that unsophisticated.

Maybe they are. Go Zed, your humor makes me happy.

this is humor?

Did you create a profile to turf the turfing of the turfing, Mr.Bokchoi?

Ha!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com