3 ms·

But you have been stating your opinions here, without including the disclaimer that you're an Uber employee. The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer wi

But you have been stating your opinions here, without including the disclaimer that you're an Uber employee. The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments.

komon 9y ago
What does it matter? There's no claim of journalistic integrity or lack of bias in internet comments. Would we like to know when bias exists? Sure. Do we need to castigate those who neglect to comment on their own bias? I don't think it's necessary.
DannyBee 9y ago
"The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments" No, it isn't. (it is if you are a journalist with a conflict of interest, which he isn't). The second it is, i'm out. Because there's no reason you should care. It's just another excuse for people to be able to dismiss what others say without having to think critically about it. If you want to engage on the merits, do it. Everyone and everything is biased. Both consciously and not. If you want to say "hey, i read the article and i think your take is wrong", awesome, do that. His take isn't any righter or wronger because he's an uber engineer, and the whole point of a discussion forum like this is, in fact, to have critical thinking. Otherwise it's just another worthless echo chamber. (I'm going to completely and totally ignore the "people also aren't their jobs" part of this). So instead of caring about his day job, IMHO, you should do the critical thinking and engage in the discussion for real.
- Geekette 9y ago
  It's not about condemning bias, qualifying the rightness/wrongness of comment or "caring about his day job" but about arguments in good faith. Not declaring affiliations or potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact. It doesn't have to be in more formal settings such as in publications by journalists - I also see disclaimers stated by others in HN comments often.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Arguments in good faith do not require source disclaimers. That's the very definition of good faith. "potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact." This is, in my experience, nonsense. The only thing disclaimers add to a good faith discussion is the ability of people to do exactly what you claim they'll do "after the fact", during the discussion. Please stare at any comment with a disclaimer from a group people don't like (uber, for example), and count how many comments are about where they work instead of their argument. IE They are upset they turned out to agree with someone that belongs to some group they don't like, or whatever. It is also against the very definition of good faith you describe to do that kind of thing "after the fact", regardless of who you are. The fact that you believe disclaimers are necessary to a good faith discussion means you aren't actually having discussions in good faith.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Is source evaluation not part of critical thinking these days? It certainly was in all my research courses when I was in school. Or do you just mean I should have to click to do the source evaluation?
  - Natsu 9y ago
    For unverifiable claims, perhaps, but it's usually far better to simply ignore all unverifiable claims in the first place. It's not useful in debate, either, better to simply to stick to debating what facts (if any) formed an opinion, as at least those can be researched.
Kiro 9y ago
There's no standard procedure. You're making things up.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  s/standard/accepted, usual/, and it does hold up. Not everything that's generally followed here is codified.

komon 9y ago

What does it matter? There's no claim of journalistic integrity or lack of bias in internet comments. Would we like to know when bias exists? Sure. Do we need to castigate those who neglect to comment on their own bias? I don't think it's necessary.

DannyBee 9y ago

"The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments" No, it isn't. (it is if you are a journalist with a conflict of interest, which he isn't). The second it is, i'm out. Because there's no reason you should care. It's just another excuse for people to be able to dismiss what others say without having to think critically about it. If you want to engage on the merits, do it. Everyone and everything is biased. Both consciously and not. If you want to say "hey, i read the article and i think your take is wrong", awesome, do that. His take isn't any righter or wronger because he's an uber engineer, and the whole point of a discussion forum like this is, in fact, to have critical thinking. Otherwise it's just another worthless echo chamber. (I'm going to completely and totally ignore the "people also aren't their jobs" part of this). So instead of caring about his day job, IMHO, you should do the critical thinking and engage in the discussion for real.

Geekette 9y ago
It's not about condemning bias, qualifying the rightness/wrongness of comment or "caring about his day job" but about arguments in good faith. Not declaring affiliations or potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact. It doesn't have to be in more formal settings such as in publications by journalists - I also see disclaimers stated by others in HN comments often.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  Arguments in good faith do not require source disclaimers. That's the very definition of good faith. "potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact." This is, in my experience, nonsense. The only thing disclaimers add to a good faith discussion is the ability of people to do exactly what you claim they'll do "after the fact", during the discussion. Please stare at any comment with a disclaimer from a group people don't like (uber, for example), and count how many comments are about where they work instead of their argument. IE They are upset they turned out to agree with someone that belongs to some group they don't like, or whatever. It is also against the very definition of good faith you describe to do that kind of thing "after the fact", regardless of who you are. The fact that you believe disclaimers are necessary to a good faith discussion means you aren't actually having discussions in good faith.
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Is source evaluation not part of critical thinking these days? It certainly was in all my research courses when I was in school. Or do you just mean I should have to click to do the source evaluation?
- Natsu 9y ago
  For unverifiable claims, perhaps, but it's usually far better to simply ignore all unverifiable claims in the first place. It's not useful in debate, either, better to simply to stick to debating what facts (if any) formed an opinion, as at least those can be researched.

Kiro 9y ago

There's no standard procedure. You're making things up.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
s/standard/accepted, usual/, and it does hold up. Not everything that's generally followed here is codified.