4 ms·

Why do people always say this? Multiple agendas can be pursued simultaneously

Avicebron 6y ago
It's an attempt to deflect the issue at hand by putting up some straw men, they say it because they feel personally attacked that their monopolist daddy is under some fire for world scale abuse and bad faith.
CPLX 6y ago
The person you're replying to is a current Google employee.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/10/amazon-facebook-google-political-allies-antitrust/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/10/amazon-... https://twitter.com/william_fitz/status/1270740531081932801?s=20 https://twitter.com/william_fitz/status/1270740531081932801?... Googlers downvoted and flagged a comment that raised the possibility of astroturfing. Looks like we hit a nerve. Their employer is spending millions trying to sway public opinion.
  - dang 6y ago
    I downvoted and flagged your comment and am no googler. It's against HN's rules to accuse other users of astroturfing without evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Even if another user works for Google and is commenting about Google, a lot of people comment based on what they know or how they feel from work. Nothing could be more natural than to do that, so it's not evidence of an organized campaign. Moreover, it's not something we'd want to suppress on Hacker News, because we don't want to disincentivize [1] people from showing up here to talk about what they know, and for most of us, what we work on is our area of greatest knowledge. Should an employee of $CO disclose that they work for $CO whenever they comment on a topic that's related to $CO? Arguably that would be courteous to other users. But not doing it is certainly less discourteous than accusing someone else of being an astroturfer or shill, and the implication that someone was paid to post an HN comment rather than expressing a sincerely held view is a slur. There is plenty of past explanation about HN's no-astroturfing-accusations rule at [2]. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20disincent&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
    - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
      Thank you for letting me know. I was not aware of that rule. I do see commenters that routinely like to share the fact of who they work for, It may be that they only do that when they think it stengthens their comment. In any event, I will not make the same mistake again. Remember that to argue that the comment contained an "accusation" requires that one draw some inference from the inclusion of the Wikipedia URL. Inlcuding the URL was a mistake. The statement I made however contained no accusation. It merely drew attention to the fact that Googlers often disclose their employer when talking about Google stuff on HN but in this case the person made not mention of it. I found that noteworthy. The inference to be made there would simply be potential bias. I think that's fair. Is it within the rules to state that a commenter is an employee of "${CO}"? I note the commenter who did that did not get flagged.
      - dang 6y ago
        Thanks for the balanced reply! Fair enough re "accusation". If I had read your comment more closely I would have said "insinuation", which is the word that the guidelines use anyway. > Is it within the rules to state that a commenter is an employee of "${CO}"? I note the commenter who did that did not get flagged. That's a tough one to answer unequivocally. Bringing in someone's personal details as ammunition in an argument is generally not allowed: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22personal%20details%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., so if I had to pick yes or no I'd say no. But one can imagine lots of borderline cases.
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Because those things are not pursued. Good faith can only go so far when their comment was just as valid a decade ago as it is today.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing It is probably not a coincidence that the comment does not begin with "Google employee here" or contain a disclaimer that the author works for Google.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

It's an attempt to deflect the issue at hand by putting up some straw men, they say it because they feel personally attacked that their monopolist daddy is under some fire for world scale abuse and bad faith.

CPLX 6y ago

The person you're replying to is a current Google employee.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/10/amazon-facebook-google-political-allies-antitrust/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/10/amazon-... https://twitter.com/william_fitz/status/1270740531081932801?s=20 https://twitter.com/william_fitz/status/1270740531081932801?... Googlers downvoted and flagged a comment that raised the possibility of astroturfing. Looks like we hit a nerve. Their employer is spending millions trying to sway public opinion.
- dang 6y ago
  I downvoted and flagged your comment and am no googler. It's against HN's rules to accuse other users of astroturfing without evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Even if another user works for Google and is commenting about Google, a lot of people comment based on what they know or how they feel from work. Nothing could be more natural than to do that, so it's not evidence of an organized campaign. Moreover, it's not something we'd want to suppress on Hacker News, because we don't want to disincentivize [1] people from showing up here to talk about what they know, and for most of us, what we work on is our area of greatest knowledge. Should an employee of $CO disclose that they work for $CO whenever they comment on a topic that's related to $CO? Arguably that would be courteous to other users. But not doing it is certainly less discourteous than accusing someone else of being an astroturfer or shill, and the implication that someone was paid to post an HN comment rather than expressing a sincerely held view is a slur. There is plenty of past explanation about HN's no-astroturfing-accusations rule at [2]. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20disincent&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
  - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
    Thank you for letting me know. I was not aware of that rule. I do see commenters that routinely like to share the fact of who they work for, It may be that they only do that when they think it stengthens their comment. In any event, I will not make the same mistake again. Remember that to argue that the comment contained an "accusation" requires that one draw some inference from the inclusion of the Wikipedia URL. Inlcuding the URL was a mistake. The statement I made however contained no accusation. It merely drew attention to the fact that Googlers often disclose their employer when talking about Google stuff on HN but in this case the person made not mention of it. I found that noteworthy. The inference to be made there would simply be potential bias. I think that's fair. Is it within the rules to state that a commenter is an employee of "${CO}"? I note the commenter who did that did not get flagged.
    - dang 6y ago
      Thanks for the balanced reply! Fair enough re "accusation". If I had read your comment more closely I would have said "insinuation", which is the word that the guidelines use anyway. > Is it within the rules to state that a commenter is an employee of "${CO}"? I note the commenter who did that did not get flagged. That's a tough one to answer unequivocally. Bringing in someone's personal details as ammunition in an argument is generally not allowed: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22personal%20details%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so..., so if I had to pick yes or no I'd say no. But one can imagine lots of borderline cases.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

Because those things are not pursued. Good faith can only go so far when their comment was just as valid a decade ago as it is today.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing It is probably not a coincidence that the comment does not begin with "Google employee here" or contain a disclaimer that the author works for Google.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]