5 ms·

It would be nice if commenters like you added a disclaimer that you work for Google in comments that hand wave away Google's privacy issues.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Eventually you just get the gist for who around here works at Google. ;) cromwellian, who responded to one of my comments here, is also a Googler. Arguably, DannyBee is correct that the real issue is that credit card companies are allowed to sell this data at all. But perhaps the danger of this practice is especially highlighted by the fact that Google is now one of the buyers.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  Should HN have an employer field next to user names, like the domain field next to the article name? It may have helped with the recent Docker issue.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I don't think there's a lot of benefit to this. People would still debate whether or not they needed to disclose. Some people believe that if their posts are their personal views, they don't need to disclose. People might be more likely to use throwaway accounts for personal opinions or posts on unrelated topics. Since HN doesn't mandate any of this be provided (or accurate), it becomes useless. I usually don't disclose my employer on my profile... but I don't work at a startup or major tech company and no companies discussed here have any sort of relationship with mine. I think people should disclose they work for a company they are defending the position of online. But I don't see a way to force that issue in an environment that permits anon accounts.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      I dunno, either people are there companies or they aren't. I am not my company, and a lot of people elsewhere aren't either. I don't think who we work for is really relevant at all unless they are trying to make offical statements. Either engage on the merits or don't. "Ignore this guy, he works for X" is not a useful line of argumentation. The only thing putting company names next to things would create, IMHO, is an echo chamber. (This is very different than journalists being paid to write specific articles or funded to do specific research, or even people paid quite specifically to astroturf) If we believe it's some magical generalized conflict of interest, why stop at company names. In any article about NIMBYism, should we require people post whjether they rent/own/own a home > 2 million/whatever. etc IMHO it's completely irrelevant to the merits of their argument. The merits don't change one way or the other. It seems the only usefulness would be able to filter/confirm biases. At that point, why bother having a discussion.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        One highlight point to me, is that as an employee posting on an identifiable account, you have two options: Convey the same view as your employer, or remain silent lest you risk being fired. (No matter how much a company claims this isn't the case, it pretty much is, particularly revolving around talk about that employer specifically.) I doubt there exists a public post where a Googler says they think Google should be broken up Ma Bell style, or where they state that Google's attitude on privacy is broken and wrong; anyone who said such would no longer be a Googler. And of course, since you're surrounded 8+ hours a day by people who generally find your employer and it's practices agreeable, you've got a natural bias anyways. Therefore, the participation of employees adds a lean in their favor, and disclosure, if it doesn't neutralize it, at least flags it so people are aware. Mind you, knowing you're a Googler, I did upvote your original comment, because I thought it was accurate and had value. And I do see the concern about people being dismissive of others based on their employers, particularly in comments not directly related to the topic being discussed. (Imagine trying to comment here with "Uber, Inc." after your name.)
        DannyBee 9y ago
        "Convey the same view as your employer, or remain silent lest you risk being fired. (No matter how much a company claims this isn't the case, it pretty much is, particularly revolving around talk about that employer specifically.) I doubt there exists a public post where a Googler says they think Google should be broken up Ma Bell style, or where they state that Google's attitude on privacy is broken and wrong" You are wrong on both points, FWIW :) But it's definitely true at other companies. " And I do see the concern about people being dismissive of others based on their employers, particularly in comments not directly related to the topic being discussed." Given another person just literally said to me "the opinion is less valuable because you work for X", i'm much more worried about this attitude than i am the one where people are biased towards their companies. Most people in tech are not true believers. Most probably like their companies. But that doesn't mean they agree with what their companies do all the time. Especially in a company the size of, say, Google, it's pretty, IMHO, silly to think that among 150k of those people, there is no dissent, or not even a lot of dissent, all the time.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  I put my disclaimer in my profile and I usually make it obvious from my comment I work for Google, but I really tire of putting a disclaimer in each and every message, it gets tedious after a while. Perhaps HN should implement some kind of badget/sigfile/etc extension for this purpose. But I'll also note that in my response, I didn't comment on whether or not what Google was going is a good thing, or even going about it in the right way, I merely commented that the information being speculated on is inaccurate and that there was a crypto-conference presentation that gave some details of what Google is doing that contradict what some of the commenters imply. I actually understand the skepticism and I think it is related to the secrecy of the mechanism and if a peer reviewed paper were published, it might do much more to alleviate fears.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    And I also upvoted your comment because I thought it was valuable and noteworthy. :) I really wasn't meaning to be critical to you in my response here. HN seems kind of hesitant to add additional profile tools beyond the usual. I'm not sure if that's part of it's charm or a detriment. I think having a sig line on every comment might be tedious, and FWIW, I don't think it should be obligatory to attach your employer to every comment on every post on HN. There's a lot that's simply not remotely relevant.
DannyBee 9y ago
I've made very clear when i speak for Google and when I don't, and i pretty much never do (except on some licensing issues). If you want official statements from me, go elsewhere. If you want HN to be a place of real discussion and debate, it's stupid to try to tie people to their companies. I think very different from my company on quite a lot of issues, and i happily point that at too. To your point, however, I didn't hand wave away anything. I said the real issue is "people can get this data". Are you really so naive as to believe this isn't being done by every damn company that can get the data? Saying the real issue is that "Google" got this data, is, IMHO, missing the boat. I don't want Facebook to have it eithre! So to me, like I said, i don't give a shit about that part. You are more than welcome to have a different opinion! I also worked in DC long enough that a random PR release by an organization devoted to lobbying on certain issues just doesn't bug me or make me care. Quite literally. So I said that. They are more than welcome to file whatever complaints they want, and i hope they get some sort of response. While i tend to disagree strongly with his views, i'm much more in favor of folks like ocdtrekkie filing complaints with whatever specific feelings they have on an issue, because at least i don't believe that's being driven by PR (I know it may be shocking to learn that,in attempts to get funding, etc, non-profits do large coordinated PR campaigns the same way politicians submit bills they know will never pass so they can go home and talk abut it at a stump speech. Much like everyone else, they must stay relevant to be useful.).
- rifung 9y ago
  I think the disclaimer would have been appropriate here just for transparency sake. As an employee and likely a shareholder, presumably people will be worried you have an ulterior motive in trying to get people to think of Google in a positive light. I don't think it's so much about thing people to their companies but more about being transparent so people can form their own opinions. If people just accuse you of hiding that information it details the conversation anyway. Just my opinion. I also work for Google and am pretty sure they also recommend being transparent when commenting on things related to the company although I admit it's been a while since I read the guidelines.
  - DannyBee 9y ago

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Eventually you just get the gist for who around here works at Google. ;) cromwellian, who responded to one of my comments here, is also a Googler. Arguably, DannyBee is correct that the real issue is that credit card companies are allowed to sell this data at all. But perhaps the danger of this practice is especially highlighted by the fact that Google is now one of the buyers.

stephengillie 9y ago
Should HN have an employer field next to user names, like the domain field next to the article name? It may have helped with the recent Docker issue.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  I don't think there's a lot of benefit to this. People would still debate whether or not they needed to disclose. Some people believe that if their posts are their personal views, they don't need to disclose. People might be more likely to use throwaway accounts for personal opinions or posts on unrelated topics. Since HN doesn't mandate any of this be provided (or accurate), it becomes useless. I usually don't disclose my employer on my profile... but I don't work at a startup or major tech company and no companies discussed here have any sort of relationship with mine. I think people should disclose they work for a company they are defending the position of online. But I don't see a way to force that issue in an environment that permits anon accounts.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    I dunno, either people are there companies or they aren't. I am not my company, and a lot of people elsewhere aren't either. I don't think who we work for is really relevant at all unless they are trying to make offical statements. Either engage on the merits or don't. "Ignore this guy, he works for X" is not a useful line of argumentation. The only thing putting company names next to things would create, IMHO, is an echo chamber. (This is very different than journalists being paid to write specific articles or funded to do specific research, or even people paid quite specifically to astroturf) If we believe it's some magical generalized conflict of interest, why stop at company names. In any article about NIMBYism, should we require people post whjether they rent/own/own a home > 2 million/whatever. etc IMHO it's completely irrelevant to the merits of their argument. The merits don't change one way or the other. It seems the only usefulness would be able to filter/confirm biases. At that point, why bother having a discussion.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      One highlight point to me, is that as an employee posting on an identifiable account, you have two options: Convey the same view as your employer, or remain silent lest you risk being fired. (No matter how much a company claims this isn't the case, it pretty much is, particularly revolving around talk about that employer specifically.) I doubt there exists a public post where a Googler says they think Google should be broken up Ma Bell style, or where they state that Google's attitude on privacy is broken and wrong; anyone who said such would no longer be a Googler. And of course, since you're surrounded 8+ hours a day by people who generally find your employer and it's practices agreeable, you've got a natural bias anyways. Therefore, the participation of employees adds a lean in their favor, and disclosure, if it doesn't neutralize it, at least flags it so people are aware. Mind you, knowing you're a Googler, I did upvote your original comment, because I thought it was accurate and had value. And I do see the concern about people being dismissive of others based on their employers, particularly in comments not directly related to the topic being discussed. (Imagine trying to comment here with "Uber, Inc." after your name.)
      - DannyBee 9y ago
        "Convey the same view as your employer, or remain silent lest you risk being fired. (No matter how much a company claims this isn't the case, it pretty much is, particularly revolving around talk about that employer specifically.) I doubt there exists a public post where a Googler says they think Google should be broken up Ma Bell style, or where they state that Google's attitude on privacy is broken and wrong" You are wrong on both points, FWIW :) But it's definitely true at other companies. " And I do see the concern about people being dismissive of others based on their employers, particularly in comments not directly related to the topic being discussed." Given another person just literally said to me "the opinion is less valuable because you work for X", i'm much more worried about this attitude than i am the one where people are biased towards their companies. Most people in tech are not true believers. Most probably like their companies. But that doesn't mean they agree with what their companies do all the time. Especially in a company the size of, say, Google, it's pretty, IMHO, silly to think that among 150k of those people, there is no dissent, or not even a lot of dissent, all the time.
cromwellian 9y ago
I put my disclaimer in my profile and I usually make it obvious from my comment I work for Google, but I really tire of putting a disclaimer in each and every message, it gets tedious after a while. Perhaps HN should implement some kind of badget/sigfile/etc extension for this purpose. But I'll also note that in my response, I didn't comment on whether or not what Google was going is a good thing, or even going about it in the right way, I merely commented that the information being speculated on is inaccurate and that there was a crypto-conference presentation that gave some details of what Google is doing that contradict what some of the commenters imply. I actually understand the skepticism and I think it is related to the secrecy of the mechanism and if a peer reviewed paper were published, it might do much more to alleviate fears.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  And I also upvoted your comment because I thought it was valuable and noteworthy. :) I really wasn't meaning to be critical to you in my response here. HN seems kind of hesitant to add additional profile tools beyond the usual. I'm not sure if that's part of it's charm or a detriment. I think having a sig line on every comment might be tedious, and FWIW, I don't think it should be obligatory to attach your employer to every comment on every post on HN. There's a lot that's simply not remotely relevant.

DannyBee 9y ago

I've made very clear when i speak for Google and when I don't, and i pretty much never do (except on some licensing issues). If you want official statements from me, go elsewhere. If you want HN to be a place of real discussion and debate, it's stupid to try to tie people to their companies. I think very different from my company on quite a lot of issues, and i happily point that at too. To your point, however, I didn't hand wave away anything. I said the real issue is "people can get this data". Are you really so naive as to believe this isn't being done by every damn company that can get the data? Saying the real issue is that "Google" got this data, is, IMHO, missing the boat. I don't want Facebook to have it eithre! So to me, like I said, i don't give a shit about that part. You are more than welcome to have a different opinion! I also worked in DC long enough that a random PR release by an organization devoted to lobbying on certain issues just doesn't bug me or make me care. Quite literally. So I said that. They are more than welcome to file whatever complaints they want, and i hope they get some sort of response. While i tend to disagree strongly with his views, i'm much more in favor of folks like ocdtrekkie filing complaints with whatever specific feelings they have on an issue, because at least i don't believe that's being driven by PR (I know it may be shocking to learn that,in attempts to get funding, etc, non-profits do large coordinated PR campaigns the same way politicians submit bills they know will never pass so they can go home and talk abut it at a stump speech. Much like everyone else, they must stay relevant to be useful.).

rifung 9y ago
I think the disclaimer would have been appropriate here just for transparency sake. As an employee and likely a shareholder, presumably people will be worried you have an ulterior motive in trying to get people to think of Google in a positive light. I don't think it's so much about thing people to their companies but more about being transparent so people can form their own opinions. If people just accuse you of hiding that information it details the conversation anyway. Just my opinion. I also work for Google and am pretty sure they also recommend being transparent when commenting on things related to the company although I admit it's been a while since I read the guidelines.
- DannyBee 9y ago