3 ms·

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 y

by 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
"I think the disclaimer would have been appropriate here just for transparency sake." I'm very strongly against disclaimers for my personal opinions on random discussion forums , and will continue not to do so right up until i'm forced to (at which point, i'll probably just stop contributing). When I write or post articles in a public news setting or something, or get paid to write them, i'll be happy to. When i'm just writing crap on HN, sorry, but no. "presumably people will be worried you have an ulterior motive in trying to get people to think of Google in a positive light." Which, again, should and does contribute literally nothing to a real discussion, much in the same way knowing a guy owns a 50 million dollar house does not make their opinions or viewpoints, or arguments, less valid on NIMBYism. Engage on the merits. "but more about being transparent so people can form their own opinions". People should not form opinions based on who other people work for, when they aren't speaking for their companies. This is precisely a type of bias we should be seeking to prevent. It adds no value to an intellectual discussion. It just gives a mechanism for smug self satisfaction by saying "hey, i don't have to care if he has a good point, he works for X so i can just pretend it's not a real argument" "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.' I'm very very very familiar with the guidelines google issues.
- rifung 9y ago
  > People should not form opinions based on who other people work for, when they aren't speaking for their companies. This is precisely a type of bias we should be seeking to prevent. It adds no value to an intellectual discussion. It just gives a mechanism for smug self satisfaction by saying "hey, i don't have to care if he has a good point, he works for X so i can just pretend it's not a real argument" The irony is that by not disclosing the company you work for, you actually make it worse. If you disclose any conflicts of interest, then people will be less likely to accuse you of having an ulterior motive. I suppose it's a philosophical choice of living like how you want the world to be or how it is now and who am I to tell you how to live your life!
  - true_religion 9y ago
    It's not as if he didn't disclose. He did so in his profile which is the canonical place on HN to put off-topic information about a poster. If he put "I work at Google", on every post that touches Google then we might as well go back to having signatures on every post like a web-forum.
hellbanner 9y ago
Origin comment said they didn't want data to be sold to anyone. I interpreted that to be including Google (and their other comments back it up). While I agree that because of Google's intimate symbiosis with internet, it's nice to have transparency from employees when they protect Google, I don't think the Original Comment was protecting Google. They were arguing that instead of being upset that Google can now get your data, in addition to [$OTHERCORP, ...], privacy advocates should be upset that any corp is getting the data.
- rifung 9y ago
  > They were arguing that instead of being upset that Google can now get your data, in addition to [$OTHERCORP, ...], privacy advocates should be upset that any corp is getting the data. Indeed when I said defending I didn't mean they were saying Google is right but rather moving the discussion away from having bad PR for Google, which is like defending the name of the company (even if it's justified). I admit that my vocabulary is rather limited so perhaps that is not the right word to use but hopefully you get my point.
  - hellbanner 9y ago
    Yes I do, and I think it's better to be too cautious when it comes to Google than not cautious enough. They are a giant.

by rifung 9y ago

DannyBee 9y ago

"I think the disclaimer would have been appropriate here just for transparency sake." I'm very strongly against disclaimers for my personal opinions on random discussion forums , and will continue not to do so right up until i'm forced to (at which point, i'll probably just stop contributing). When I write or post articles in a public news setting or something, or get paid to write them, i'll be happy to. When i'm just writing crap on HN, sorry, but no. "presumably people will be worried you have an ulterior motive in trying to get people to think of Google in a positive light." Which, again, should and does contribute literally nothing to a real discussion, much in the same way knowing a guy owns a 50 million dollar house does not make their opinions or viewpoints, or arguments, less valid on NIMBYism. Engage on the merits. "but more about being transparent so people can form their own opinions". People should not form opinions based on who other people work for, when they aren't speaking for their companies. This is precisely a type of bias we should be seeking to prevent. It adds no value to an intellectual discussion. It just gives a mechanism for smug self satisfaction by saying "hey, i don't have to care if he has a good point, he works for X so i can just pretend it's not a real argument" "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.' I'm very very very familiar with the guidelines google issues.

rifung 9y ago
> People should not form opinions based on who other people work for, when they aren't speaking for their companies. This is precisely a type of bias we should be seeking to prevent. It adds no value to an intellectual discussion. It just gives a mechanism for smug self satisfaction by saying "hey, i don't have to care if he has a good point, he works for X so i can just pretend it's not a real argument" The irony is that by not disclosing the company you work for, you actually make it worse. If you disclose any conflicts of interest, then people will be less likely to accuse you of having an ulterior motive. I suppose it's a philosophical choice of living like how you want the world to be or how it is now and who am I to tell you how to live your life!
- true_religion 9y ago
  It's not as if he didn't disclose. He did so in his profile which is the canonical place on HN to put off-topic information about a poster. If he put "I work at Google", on every post that touches Google then we might as well go back to having signatures on every post like a web-forum.

hellbanner 9y ago

Origin comment said they didn't want data to be sold to anyone. I interpreted that to be including Google (and their other comments back it up). While I agree that because of Google's intimate symbiosis with internet, it's nice to have transparency from employees when they protect Google, I don't think the Original Comment was protecting Google. They were arguing that instead of being upset that Google can now get your data, in addition to [$OTHERCORP, ...], privacy advocates should be upset that any corp is getting the data.

rifung 9y ago
> They were arguing that instead of being upset that Google can now get your data, in addition to [$OTHERCORP, ...], privacy advocates should be upset that any corp is getting the data. Indeed when I said defending I didn't mean they were saying Google is right but rather moving the discussion away from having bad PR for Google, which is like defending the name of the company (even if it's justified). I admit that my vocabulary is rather limited so perhaps that is not the right word to use but hopefully you get my point.
- hellbanner 9y ago
  Yes I do, and I think it's better to be too cautious when it comes to Google than not cautious enough. They are a giant.