
Reporter: Google successfully pressured me to take down critical story - MBCook
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/reporter-google-successfully-pressured-me-to-take-down-critical-story/#p3
======
sctb
Yesterday's discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15145176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15145176)

------
mcguire
" _[In 2011,] Hill was a cub reporter at Forbes, where she covered technology
and privacy. At the time, Google was actively promoting Google Plus and was
sending representatives to media organizations to encourage them to add "+1"
buttons to their sites. Hill was pulled into one of these meetings, where the
Google representative suggested that Forbes would be penalized in Google
search results if it didn't add +1 buttons to the site._

" _Hill thought that seemed like a big story, so she contacted Google 's PR
shop for confirmation. Google essentially confirmed the story, and so Hill ran
with it under the headline: "Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your
Search Traffic Suffers."_"

" _" I was told by my higher-ups at Forbes that Google representatives called
them saying that the article was problematic and had to come down. The
implication was that it might have consequences for Forbes, a troubling
possibility given how much traffic came through Google searches and Google
News."_"

Ugh. Google was reportedly throwing their _search traffic_ weight around.

~~~
deadalus
This is why I am scared to criticize Google. It knows who I am and it knows
all the other businesses/websites that I own. It might try to
damage/demonetize them subversively if it thinks that I am against it or its
owners in any way. There will be no way I can prove it. It also shares it data
with the US government.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-
Tel)

[https://gizmodo.com/how-google-gives-your-information-to-
the...](https://gizmodo.com/how-google-gives-your-information-to-the-
nsa-512840958)

~~~
e40
_This is why I am scared to criticize Google_

You just did, in what followed that comment.

------
Sylphine
"Disclosure: My brother works at Google." We all know who is getting fired
today. _grabs popcorn_ Edit: Dupe already! Man do googlers on HN work fast.

------
lern_too_spel
Threatening to retaliate against the press is another thing (after the no-
poaching agreement) Google should not have copied from Apple.

~~~
Jtsummers
Not doubting you, but what instances were there of Apple threatening to
retaliate against the press? Nothing is coming to mind when I try to recall
such incidents and I imagine you have some specific ones you could point to.

~~~
lern_too_spel
[http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-prs-dirty-little-
secret/](http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-prs-dirty-little-secret/)

[https://www.cultofmac.com/255618/how-apples-blacklist-
manipu...](https://www.cultofmac.com/255618/how-apples-blacklist-manipulates-
the-press/)

~~~
Jtsummers
Thanks for the links, I think I'd read the ZDNet article once before.

------
smegel
> Hill thought that seemed like a big story

It is a big story still. It sounds illegal.

------
jklinger410
To me this article feels like bandwagoning and hearsay. I am all for the
critical attention aimed at Google, but there is simply no teeth to this story
at all.

Edit: Thanks guys for the criticism about using the word hearsay in this
context. I'll never use it that way again, pinky promise.

~~~
saas_sam
Hearsay is a legal term to prevent court cases from proceeding on information
gleaned from witnesses who are not present. So, if you refuse to go to court
as a witness, your coworker who overheard you talk about the case cannot sit
in your place.

When someone writes a story about someone else's experience, that's not
"hearsay," that's just "journalism." You may not think this story sounds
credible, but if so you should come up with a different reason than "this is a
story about someone else's experience therefore it's unreliable."

And anyway, you can just read the original article written by the person who
experienced this, if you want to circumvent the "hearsay" thing:
[http://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-
ideas-...](http://gizmodo.com/yes-google-uses-its-power-to-quash-ideas-it-
doesn-t-li-1798646437)

~~~
jklinger410
Pardon me for using hearsay colloquially. Since we are not in a courtroom, I
didn't think anyone would presume I'm using legalese, but I digress.

The issue I have with the article, referring my toothless remark, is this part

>told me that I needed to unpublish the story because the meeting had been
confidential, and the information discussed there had been subject to a non-
disclosure agreement between Google and Forbes. (I had signed no such
agreement, hadn’t been told the meeting was confidential, and had identified
myself as a journalist.)

So no one told you that the meeting was confidential, it was, and they asked
you to take it down.

Ok, yawn.

Then from the article you posted:

>Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at
all.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Then you follow through to see no proof anywhere. "Bandwagoning" as I said
previously, on how this other group lost funding for criticizing Google. Then
an email confirming the NDA and that Forbes willingly took down the article.

The whole time this person has no evidence or proof of these things actually
occurring. Saying things like "it stopped showing up in search" "I couldn't
find it in the cache" "no one told me there was an NDA" "I heard Google say
the +1 button helped your rank" all lack any ability to verify.

Journalists love to journal, though. So let's continue with this gossip.

~~~
saas_sam
I totally get it, I would like to see more evidence also, so this story
shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. However, it should also not be discounted
as false. Google needs to respond to these accusations and make it clear what
their stance is on this sort of behavior. Not because the accusations
themselves are super credible, but because the accusations speak to a deep
concern many of Google's customers have about the power they wield.

~~~
jklinger410
>I totally get it, I would like to see more evidence also

Right, me too. I can't find Google doing anything wrong here. The article was
under NDA so Forbes and Google took it down willingly.

No proof of the +1 statement. No proof of Google censoring the article. We
have no story here.

Unprovable accusations don't help your side of the fight, though. Even if they
hint at something that is true.

~~~
saas_sam
It's totally provable though. Whether or not it will be proved is another
matter. Other witnesses were presumably around so they might chime in.
Certainly Google can step in and tell their side. The thing about these sorts
of situations is corporations are very hesitant to come out and blatantly lie
because it can come back to bite them in a huge way later on. So if Google
comes out and refutes these claims, that will suggest they are PROBABLY not
true, or at least very different than what we are being told. Not a perfect
barometer for the truth, as they certainly can lie and get away with it, but
it's better than nothing.

~~~
jklinger410
Google did chime in. Clearly you didn't read the article you linked to me.

~~~
saas_sam
You misunderstand, I was referring to WHY these sorts of articles have value,
which seemed to me to be the topic of our exchange. Google would not have
released a statement on this topic without this article. Likewise, if others
have additional information (such as witnesses or journalists at other
companies) they are more likely to come out with it.

