I have received feedback indicating a perceived bias against Google from certain individuals. Are they consistently letting down stakeholders with subpar business choices, misguided development strategies, and a lack of commitment to their core offerings? Unquestionably. Could these issues be rectified? The answer is an emphatic yes.
In an effort to present a balanced perspective on Google, I present to you, “Facebook: A Case of Intellectual Missteps Too.”
Facebook has long been a source of confusion and folly, and now, they happen to be a wealthy and influential source of confusion and folly. With a vast user base, substantial financial resources, and numerous powerful investors, they continue to make perplexing decisions.
I believe much of this stems from the personality at the helm. Zuckerberg’s tenure as Facebook’s leader has been marred by numerous controversies, allegations, and legal disputes. The portrait that emerges is one of someone who is negligent, self-absorbed, and seemingly convinced that their misdeeds have no consequences.
The recent smear campaign against Google is yet another example of this pattern.
This campaign demonstrates a flagrant disregard for business ethics, public relations tactics, and technological methodologies.
Firstly, why resort to clandestine methods to besmirch Google? Everyone knows the animosity between the two companies. I have been discussing this in my Google vs. Facebook posts for some time now, and many others have echoed the sentiment. The rivalry for market share is no secret, and there was no need for underhanded tactics. A straightforward comparison of privacy policies and a commitment to user privacy could have been made, with a new, user-friendly policy released in tandem.
Secondly, public relations campaigns are notorious for their loudness and subtlety. PR firms are often seen as money-driven and contract-obsessed entities. With the current climate, no one takes PR claims at face value. When a PR firm is deployed to defame a company, journalists (those not affiliated with newspapers or publications) naturally inquire about their affiliations. Facebook found itself in hot water when these questions were raised.
Lastly, there is a lack of understanding of technological methodologies. Numerous articles have already highlighted Google’s flawed privacy policy. Facebook did not need to create new criticisms. Instead, they should have focused on promoting existing content. Utilizing SEO and reputation management could have been a quieter, more effective approach. This would have allowed genuine, neutral articles to rise in rankings, rather than resorting to a clumsy, brute-force strategy.
In conclusion, Facebook’s intellectual missteps are evident.
