3 ms·

"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

"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.

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.