2 ms·

"If you're going to complain about biases in an article, you have to highlight your own. " This is pretty ridiculous. I don't expect people having an opinion

"If you're going to complain about biases in an article, you have to highlight your own. " This is pretty ridiculous. I don't expect people having an opinion on child sex trafficking and talking about biases those article authors have to disclose whether they were abused as children, and are thus biased etc. I'm not the one who wrote and published an article in a major news site. I'll point out he didn't disclose his biases in his biography either, so apparently he doesn't agree with you, since he's literally complaining about google's biases. "Disclosure isn't a statement you are speaking for your company, it's a statement you have a direct vested interest in the topic at hand." Which is 100% totally and completely irrelevant to discussion of either someone else's biases or the topic of hand. If someone wants to start a separate discussion of my biases, that's fine too, but it could not be more orthogonal. > Such as being a significant stockholder, or receiving a paycheck from one of the companies being discussed." Why stop at companies? When discussing the california drought, should people living in areas affected point out they have a direct vested interest in one outcome or another (because they pay more, because it means water restrictions for them, because ...)? and again, FWIW: I am neither a significant shareholder, nor do i have a direct vested interest in the topic at hand. If Google was regulated, or whatever, it would have literally no effect on me. In any case, i'm not going to continue this line of discussion. I have no plans to change what i do, because i think it would make for a much worse discussion forum. you are welcome to do what you want.

twblalock 10y ago
> This is pretty ridiculous. I don't expect people having an opinion on child sex trafficking and talking about biases those article authors have to disclose whether they were abused as children, and are thus biased etc. That's not analogous. This is not about pre-emptive disclosure of bias. It is about disclosing the author's bias without disclosing your own, which constitutes dishonestly representing yourself as an uninterested party while maligning the author for pushing an agenda. It's unfair at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst. An analogous situation would be like this: someone reads an article about child sex trafficking and criticizes it because of the author's bias, without mentioning their own relevant bias. What you did is analogous: you criticized an author for having an anti-Google bias, without mentioning that you work at Google.

twblalock 10y ago

> This is pretty ridiculous. I don't expect people having an opinion on child sex trafficking and talking about biases those article authors have to disclose whether they were abused as children, and are thus biased etc. That's not analogous. This is not about pre-emptive disclosure of bias. It is about disclosing the author's bias without disclosing your own, which constitutes dishonestly representing yourself as an uninterested party while maligning the author for pushing an agenda. It's unfair at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst. An analogous situation would be like this: someone reads an article about child sex trafficking and criticizes it because of the author's bias, without mentioning their own relevant bias. What you did is analogous: you criticized an author for having an anti-Google bias, without mentioning that you work at Google.