5 ms·

Sorry if this sounds rude, but please be sure to add a disclaimer that you work at Amazon if you're going to be posting recommendations for AWS products on HN.

Sorry if this sounds rude, but please be sure to add a disclaimer that you work at Amazon if you're going to be posting recommendations for AWS products on HN. It already seems like Amazon is astroturfing HN this week with the 12 AWS articles currently on the front page (with 8 of them being posted by a different Amazon employee), and it doesn't help if Amazon employees are posting recommendations while pretending they don't work there (your use of the phrase "they" when referring to Amazon is a little weird) edit: You keep replying to this comment mentioning how you don't work there and don't have any ulterior motived, and then deleting it. Why? You do clearly work at Amazon based on your previous comments [1], which link to a GH profile that clearly says you work at Amazon. Whether you work specifically for AWS or not, it's still a conflict of interest for an Amazon employee to be posting recommendations for Amazon products and pretending not to be. It would be appropriate if you added a disclaimer to your original comment. edit: removing links to other user's profiles, etc

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dang 8y ago
You're crossing into harassing another user here, which is not cool. Bringing in someone's extraneous personal details or history as ammunition is particularly not allowed on HN. When people post a good, informative comment, it's important not to punish them for it. That trains the wrong behavior! Believe me, we're as sensitive to HN getting spammed/astroturfed as you are. But there's an obvious explanation for all the Amazon stories today, and it's nothing nefarious: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20big%20tech%20conference https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553686 and marked it off-topic.
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  Linking to a user's previous comment on this very website is "bringing in extraneous personal details"? I don't see how the fact that someone works at Amazon, when talking about Amazon products, is extraneous. It is very relevant to the discussion. Prior to my edit, the user posted a comment claiming that they didn't work there, which was a lie, and yet they were deceptively still promoting Amazon products. That fits the very definition of astroturfing. Believe me, I don't want to discourage good, informative comments either, and I tried to be polite when calling the user out, but this was a pretty clear cut case of astroturfing. Even if not having nefarious intent, it's still contributing to HN being a big billboard ad for AWS.
  - dang 8y ago
    Yes, that really is bringing in extraneous personal details and it is a step into harassment. Most people's personal info is scattered over the internet, including on HN. If you go looking, you can dig things up on almost anyone. Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an argument is a breach of HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. HN has lots of employees who work for tech companies, and if they know about something, it's good for HN if they share the knowledge. The commenter was merely expressing a personal preference for one technology over another.
    - txcwpalpha 8y ago
      The definition of "extraneous" is "irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with". The user was talking about Amazon. How can the fact that they work at Amazon be irrelevant or unrelated? > Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an argument is a breach of civility. Is it, though? I'm just thinking of applying that same argument to other situations in life and I don't know if it works. Is it a "breach of civility" for employers to look at your past work experience before hiring you? Is it a "breach of civility" for voters to consider the past political record of candidates when evaluating them for office? I would argue that bringing in historical information from a user's past discussions is not "bringing those back into a different context", it is enhancing the current context. Mentioning that a user works at a company, while in a discussion about that company, is providing additional useful context to that discussion. > I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. We can agree to disagree then, I suppose. The definition of astroturfing is "the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants." Again, that fits, to a tee, what the user was doing. He attempted to mask the sponsor of the message by lying about not working for Amazon. I'll agree with you that I shouldn't have called him out in a comment. I put it in a comment because I wanted to give him a chance to edit his comment rather than his whole comment being hidden/removed (since his comment did provide good info), but perhaps should have just flagged it or emailed you instead. This interaction doesn't give me much faith that anything would be done about it, though.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dang 8y ago

You're crossing into harassing another user here, which is not cool. Bringing in someone's extraneous personal details or history as ammunition is particularly not allowed on HN. When people post a good, informative comment, it's important not to punish them for it. That trains the wrong behavior! Believe me, we're as sensitive to HN getting spammed/astroturfed as you are. But there's an obvious explanation for all the Amazon stories today, and it's nothing nefarious: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20big%20tech%20conference https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18553686 and marked it off-topic.

txcwpalpha 8y ago
Linking to a user's previous comment on this very website is "bringing in extraneous personal details"? I don't see how the fact that someone works at Amazon, when talking about Amazon products, is extraneous. It is very relevant to the discussion. Prior to my edit, the user posted a comment claiming that they didn't work there, which was a lie, and yet they were deceptively still promoting Amazon products. That fits the very definition of astroturfing. Believe me, I don't want to discourage good, informative comments either, and I tried to be polite when calling the user out, but this was a pretty clear cut case of astroturfing. Even if not having nefarious intent, it's still contributing to HN being a big billboard ad for AWS.
- dang 8y ago
  Yes, that really is bringing in extraneous personal details and it is a step into harassment. Most people's personal info is scattered over the internet, including on HN. If you go looking, you can dig things up on almost anyone. Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an argument is a breach of HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. HN has lots of employees who work for tech companies, and if they know about something, it's good for HN if they share the knowledge. The commenter was merely expressing a personal preference for one technology over another.
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    The definition of "extraneous" is "irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with". The user was talking about Amazon. How can the fact that they work at Amazon be irrelevant or unrelated? > Bringing those back into a different context to get the upper hand in an argument is a breach of civility. Is it, though? I'm just thinking of applying that same argument to other situations in life and I don't know if it works. Is it a "breach of civility" for employers to look at your past work experience before hiring you? Is it a "breach of civility" for voters to consider the past political record of candidates when evaluating them for office? I would argue that bringing in historical information from a user's past discussions is not "bringing those back into a different context", it is enhancing the current context. Mentioning that a user works at a company, while in a discussion about that company, is providing additional useful context to that discussion. > I wouldn't call that comment astroturfing, either. We can agree to disagree then, I suppose. The definition of astroturfing is "the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants." Again, that fits, to a tee, what the user was doing. He attempted to mask the sponsor of the message by lying about not working for Amazon. I'll agree with you that I shouldn't have called him out in a comment. I put it in a comment because I wanted to give him a chance to edit his comment rather than his whole comment being hidden/removed (since his comment did provide good info), but perhaps should have just flagged it or emailed you instead. This interaction doesn't give me much faith that anything would be done about it, though.