Dear Silicon Valley Tech Companies: Stop Treating Your Structural Challenges As Political Challenges
from the politics-and-business-are-not-the-same dept
A couple weeks back Karl wrote up an excellent analysis of the NY Times' big piece looking at how Facebook tried to deal with ongoing criticism of the company concerning the influence operations that it appears Russians used their site for. Karl's post focused on just how many companies make use of similar political smear campaigns, and everyone (including the press) should be much more tuned into this kind of thing. Indeed, a followup story from the NY Times last week showed that a bunch of other tech companies -- namely Lyft, Lime, Juul and Qualcomm -- all had hired the very same "Definers" firm that Facebook had hired to smear its opponents.
I wanted to write a follow up post, though, to make a slightly different point. This one is more directed at the people who work at all of the big tech companies: Stop thinking about running your companies as political campaigns, and focus most on what is best for end-users. It should be noted, of course, that all of these companies are a bit different, and they all do take different approaches to the market, but over the last few years, especially, one thing that has shined through with many of these companies is that they've dealt with the challenges suddenly being directed at them as political issues, rather than structural issues.
It's not difficult to see why this is happening. To some extent, it goes back to the popular saying: "We judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions." When these companies are getting attacked over their actions, they often feel wronged by the coverage, which they feel is unfair, because the press are often judging the decisions absent larger context that shows how they reached those results. And sometimes it is unfair. But there are still elements of truth in all of these complaints, and companies need to recognize even more, that these challenges are both structural and potentially existential, rather than one of people just being "unfair" in their coverage.
The second reason why this is happening is that the political world has spent years beating on Silicon Valley to be "more engaged" in politics, and so much is now being driven by how things look through a political lens that it's become controlling in many ways. All of these companies have hired tons of political operatives, who know how to do political campaigns. Not all of them care what the company is actually doing -- they just care about how it's perceived.
Years back, when I was studying "organizational behavior," in college, I remember the professor explaining office "politics" succinctly: raising your own profile while decreasing the profile of anyone else. And, indeed, there are many examples in the NY Times Facebook article of this kind of thinking in action. Rather than deal with the larger structural problems, Facebook decided to go after its critics and its competitors. After the NY Times piece came out, TechCrunch published a bunch of the pitches they received from Definers, noting how very political they were. Unlike most PR pitches, in which the sender identifies what company they're representing, and why they're emailing, Definers pitches were... different:
We checked our inboxes and none of the pitches Definers sent to TechCrunch made an explicit disclosure that the messages they contained had been paid for by Facebook to push a pro-Facebook agenda. They all required the recipient to join those dots themselves.
[....]
Here’s an example of Definers’ oppo mud-slinging we were sent targeting Apple and Google on Facebook’s behalf:
Just came across this – thought you might find it interesting: https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2018/08/21/google-data-collection-research/“A major part of Google’s data collection occurs while a user is not directly engaged with any of its products. The magnitude of such collection is significant, especially on Android mobile devices, arguably the most popular personal accessory now carried 24/7 by more than 2 billion people.”
The study’s findings are rather shocking… It really highlights how other tech companies should be looked at critically – scrutiny shouldn’t just be on FB for data misuse. Apple & Google have been perpetrators of data abuse as well…
“Scrutiny shouldn’t just be on FB for data misuse” is the key line there, though it’s still hardly a plain English disclosure that Facebook paid for the message to be sent.
We received multiple Definers’ pitches on behalf of what looks to be three different tech companies — and only one of these is explicitly badged as a press release from the firm paying Definers to do PR. (In that case, e-scooter startup Lime.)
Not that they listen to me, but if there was a simple message I could get across to everyone working at these companies, it's that they need to stop treating actual structural issues and the actual impact of what they do as political fights, but as real, structural issues that need to be addressed. That's not to say admit that all of the criticism is valid -- because some of it is not. But, recognize that there is truth in many of the complaints, and to focus on actually doing right by your users, not simply attacking the messenger or denying the seriousness (and certainly not by merely pretending to take the issue seriously in public while privately admitting nothing will change). The fact that Facebook repeatedly denied "key aspects" of this story, only to post a blog post the night before Thanksgiving that more or less admitted everything they had previously denied, shows that the company is still treating this as a political campaign. Friday night news dumps are a classic political move to "bury" bad news, and the only time better than a random Friday night is the night before a major holiday.
For many years I've said that one of the reasons why I find the tech industry so important is that it has -- historically -- been a demonstration of what good happens when certain (not all) companies and their users have interests aligned. Rather than working at cross purposes, or trying to screw over users, many tech companies have shown that they can provide value in a way that everyone comes out of it better off. When they actually focus on doing the right thing -- even at the short term expense of the bottom line -- good long term strategies tend to result.
However, treating everything as a political campaign is the opposite of that strategy. It means attacking critics and competitors, rather than focusing on doing what's right. And, unfortunately, this political thinking is becoming pervasive across the tech industry. Some will argue that it has actually always been true, but that's not accurate at all. Much of Silicon Valley's success was premised on taking a very different approach -- one that really did focus on doing the right thing, rather than the most expedient or the most immediately profitable. But, that has changed for many, many companies. And even if it may be understandable as to why it is happening, that's still no excuse.
So, for everyone who works at these companies, please take a step back and think about what your actual vision is. Are you making decisions to actually do what's best for the users of your products. Or are you simply attacking your critics and competitors? If it's the latter, it seems like a clear sign that your company has lost its way.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: consumers, doing the right thing, innovation, politics, users
Companies: apple, definers, facebook, google, lime, lyft, qualcomm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lead by example: stop the harassment here,
of dissenters. You'll find that criticism of you automatically reduces.
I'm premising that most of all on YOUR LIE that a "voting system" by "the community" is what "hides" comments. -- But it's in no way "voting" when no up votes are even possible! -- Now, IF you start explaining that an Administrator looks at "report" and "insightful" to decide, then you'd admit what I've long stated. -- So you're TRAPPED.
Similarly, "social media" try to claim they only police "hate speech", but the definition is entirely at their discretion.
And so, you and "social media" are rightly blamed for putting the mechanisms / policies in place that enforce "politics".
Problem is on your and the corporate end, Masnick. Users are just reacting, have little control. -- As here.
You're just as usual trying to square a circle, when so long as aren't strictly neutral (by common law "free speech" terms), just keep getting yourself tangled up, besides that your enemies make ever more pointed comments, which are TRUE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lead by example: stop the harassment here,
Oh, and as for your notion that corporations will focus on long-term: PFFFT!
If you were sincere about that wish, you'd argue for high corporate tax rates that simply remove the motive of money, while providing for public works / uses that you also claim to want. But in practice, you're a born plutocrat and your only concern for society is corporate profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lead by example: stop the harassment here,
Please prove it's a lie.
(bill starting at $1010 so far...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As the article notes, 'you expect of others what you would do.'
It's funny, and rather telling, that they are so obsessed with the idea that it simply must be TD staff 'oppressing' them that results in their comments being hidden(which would require TD staff to obsess over them to the same extent that they obsess over TD and other commentors), rather than accepting the simple fact that it's the TD community flagging their posts as the unhinged, dishonest ranting of a lunatic/troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As the article notes, 'you expect of others what you would do.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lead by example: stop the harassment here,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lead by example: stop the harassment here,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lead by example: stop the harassment here,
But it's in no way "voting" when no up votes are even possible!
So when I vote for my Senator, it doesn't count as "voting" because I can't downvote the opposition? Fascinating argument.
And before you claim that's somehow different because "upvote vs downvote," it's not. Most voting systems work by presuming a "default" state, and then accumulating votes until the threshold of the "special" state is reached. In Senate races, the default state is "not being Senator," but if you accumulate enough votes you reach the special state of "Senator". In Techdirt, the default state is "visible comment," but if you accumulate enough votes then you can reach the special state of "hidden comment."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lead by example: Leave
Maybe it’s their way of saying you’re not wanted and you promised to leave forever bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lead by example: stop the harassment here,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End users? What about shareholders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: End users? What about shareholders?
That's the theory, anyway.
A whole lot of publicly-traded corporations' shareholders don't seem to agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: End users? What about shareholders?
I would love to see a study that shows how many shareholders are users of the products/services of companies they hold shares in. There are some companies where individuals don't have access to, or need of the products/services, so the study should look at those where the end users are individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$25 today vs $1 per week for the foreseeable future
Short-term vs Long-term thinking.
In the long term it pays to keep your users in mind and make sure that your focus is on giving them reason to use your platform/service/product and keep using it. In the short term however it can be much more profitable to see how much value you can get from them right now, no matter what that does to your reputation/platform/service/product in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tl;dr
Anticompetitive behavior can be very good for shareholders in the long term. If you drive competitors out of business, it doesn't matter how bad your reputation is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: End users? What about shareholders?
LOL - sure it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These sets of pseudo legislations have real power, and these companies have become government-like in their reach, thus political groups are maneuvering to capture and wield that power. Asking them to act as if these powers didn't exist seems like a naive approach. Perhaps suggesting ways to create checks for these powers would be wiser... as the only currently existing check is public opinion, which explains why they are hiring politically motivated PR firms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS abounds...this isnt new..
If it wasnt Shell oil/now BP it was someone else..
Hiring persons to jump into the politics and get them to DO WHAT they wanted..
Look up super fund sites..AND WHY most are still there..THATS a big one.
then lets look at, WHY corps are getting promises NOT to pay tax, if they Grow business in that state..(Big Box of worms)
3 things hit corps..
Old (1920's).. An economy that grows 3% per year is a good sign of prosperity.
1970...CORP Taxes from the Wars, Dropped from around 90% to 25-30%.
Court case..Final comment. A corporation is not responsible to anyone except the investors.
Who here still thinks this is a capitalist nation??
Its not supposed to be.
And We cant be capitalist if there is little to no competition...
1 company owns the 6 major name brands for Drys/washers/.../... There allot of this going around..
How many Cereal, company WERE THERE?>?>
How many beer companies have been Bought up by Anheuser Bush..
How many NON-COMPETE contracts are out there...so you only get Pepsi or Coke in a shop?? How many Stores Stock OTHER soda drinks, then from the Major 2-3..
How much MORE can we write on this??
How much should the price of GAS BE?? it was $0.35 but inflation makes it Equal to $2.26..
And thats Another part of this...WHY ADD MONEY to the economy to TRY to fix things...
IT DONT WORK THAT WAY...i wish I could take all my money and turn it to pennies and make people think they were dimes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BS abounds...this isnt new..
Corps are funny.. As they love to inflate prices OR make things seem to be Rare/hard to get..
Its an old thing, but it based on some facts.. the Biggest supplier of Underground and illegal music/movies/goods tends to be those same corps.. OR another corp trying to subvert the other..
Its not hard..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just delete the word "tech" because pretty much all corporations work this way including "Christian" ones like Hobby Lobby, Catholic Health Initiatives, as well as traditional corporations such as IBM, GE, Merck, etc. It's endemic in the corporate mentality to try to politicize and legislate their business methods to shut out competition and silence criticism and therefore increase profits. They tend to pour money heavily into both political parties to either create regulation capture with the Democrats, or roll back health/safety/consumer protection regulations with the Republicans or Libertarians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the REAL special thing about it...
is the money comes from Customers..
Corps pay for nothing, and just raise the price to cover expenses..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Section 230 immunizes websites against false-advertising claims, creating a "Wild West" environmednt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: flaccid mind; flaccid body
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: flaccid mind; flaccid body
The site owner's sponsors should know they are allowing this type of speech, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: flaccid mind; flaccid body
Yep. That's you - ever and always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: impotent mind; flabby body
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: flaccid mind; flaccid body
Please place a litigation hold on all data relating to the poster to whom I am replying, and their post. I've already taken a screenshot of this post to prove the request was made.
Libel isn't the only law of the land. Tread very carefully and don't start fights you aren't prepared to finish. I don't suffer cowards or those who enable them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: cowardly mind; impotent penis
Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: flaccid mind; flaccid body
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From now on I'm just crediting the site owner with any posts like this, compiling them, and will be putting them on blast to the right people. No need to engage the trolls here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Little bitches run away
Run away like you do.
I do have one compliment for you. You are a master of the kind of base level projection, that most not very bright eight year old would think is clever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, you're bloody terrible at thinking things through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rent seeking
An economy that becomes more and more dominated by rent seeking activities is an economy that is on the road to collapse. Our economy, surprise surprise, is becoming ever more dominated by rent seeking activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What mectheist says
So, for everyone who works at these companies, please take a step back and think about what your actual vision is. Are you making decisions to actually do what's best for the users of your products. Or are you simply attacking your critics and competitors? If it's the latter, it seems like a clear sign that your company has lost its way.
The first sign that a company has strayed from its initial stated vision is the entrenchment of incumbency and rent-seeking. Part of that activity involves cutting corners on service delivery to maximise profits.
In this case they're harvesting our data and using that to pay for the "free" service. We're the product. The only question now is, was Facebook ever about connecting people or was it always about fishing for data they could flog to advertisers, etc., while sucking in ever more users to harvest their data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]