7 ms·

OT: My pet search on HN is "Disclosure I work" [1] (or "Disclaimer I work" [2]). You'll see a few company names pop up much more often than others. I've been wo

OT: My pet search on HN is "Disclosure I work" [1] (or "Disclaimer I work" [2]). You'll see a few company names pop up much more often than others. I've been wondering why. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22Disclosure%20I%20work%22&sort=byDate&type=comment [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22Disclaimer%20I%20work%22&sort=byDate&type=comment

rbinv 5y ago
Employee count, internal policies and (negative) brand perception are factors that come to mind.
senbarryobama 5y ago
I always notice this with Googlers.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Some companies encourage you to to do this when you're discussing the company online. Even if you work on something totally unrelated at a company, it's a bad look if you sing the praises of a product and someone digs through your comment history and replies "Hang on, you work for the company that makes that product". Better to be upfront about any biases or caveats
ironmagma 5y ago
This is sometimes required if the company is publicly traded or a subsidiary thereof. To do so otherwise could be construed as stock manipulation.
jonas21 5y ago
You'll notice a great deal of those are from jefftk, who discloses who he works for in almost every comment. But in general, I think it's just that certain tech companies are big -- so they get discussed a lot on HN, and also employ a lot of HN users, thus requiring more disclosures.
- H8crilA 5y ago
  > requiring more disclosures Just so we're clear, this is not actually "required". It's a combination of bragging rights, post credibility boost and (rarely) actual, official, authorized communication from the company.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hoten 5y ago
    That's rather cynical. If an employer says I'm fine to talk about the company in public forums, but they only request I give a disclosure, then that's why I give a disclosure. Not some pointless brag. You can argue that legally or ethically I'm not required, but it seems a minor thing to do. Also, if you _don't_ disclose, there's a non-zero chance someone goes through your post history and finds you work at the company of interest, and what follows could be an accusation of shilling and attempting to deceive people by not making the connection apparent. Just as with a journalist, putting your biases upfront allows you and the reader to have a chance at a trustworthy dialogue.
  - simsla 5y ago
    I'd only mention it if I could be considered biased, or if it's relevant to the conversation. Disclaimer: it would indeed be silly in this comment
atombender 5y ago
My pet peeve is people writing "disclaimer" when they really mean "disclosure". A disclaimer denies responsibility. So if you're including a disclaimer that you work for Google, you're essentially saying that you take no responsibility for the consequences of your comment because of your employer.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  Charitably, I think the idea is something along the lines of: "Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for you mistakenly assuming that this comment is a independent review by someone unaffiliated and impartial.". (Though practically, it's probably just sloppy phrasing in a context where that sloppiness isn't much of a problem.)

rbinv 5y ago

Employee count, internal policies and (negative) brand perception are factors that come to mind.

senbarryobama 5y ago

I always notice this with Googlers.

Rebelgecko 5y ago

Some companies encourage you to to do this when you're discussing the company online. Even if you work on something totally unrelated at a company, it's a bad look if you sing the praises of a product and someone digs through your comment history and replies "Hang on, you work for the company that makes that product". Better to be upfront about any biases or caveats

ironmagma 5y ago

This is sometimes required if the company is publicly traded or a subsidiary thereof. To do so otherwise could be construed as stock manipulation.

jonas21 5y ago

You'll notice a great deal of those are from jefftk, who discloses who he works for in almost every comment. But in general, I think it's just that certain tech companies are big -- so they get discussed a lot on HN, and also employ a lot of HN users, thus requiring more disclosures.

H8crilA 5y ago
> requiring more disclosures Just so we're clear, this is not actually "required". It's a combination of bragging rights, post credibility boost and (rarely) actual, official, authorized communication from the company.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hoten 5y ago
  That's rather cynical. If an employer says I'm fine to talk about the company in public forums, but they only request I give a disclosure, then that's why I give a disclosure. Not some pointless brag. You can argue that legally or ethically I'm not required, but it seems a minor thing to do. Also, if you _don't_ disclose, there's a non-zero chance someone goes through your post history and finds you work at the company of interest, and what follows could be an accusation of shilling and attempting to deceive people by not making the connection apparent. Just as with a journalist, putting your biases upfront allows you and the reader to have a chance at a trustworthy dialogue.
- simsla 5y ago
  I'd only mention it if I could be considered biased, or if it's relevant to the conversation. Disclaimer: it would indeed be silly in this comment

atombender 5y ago

My pet peeve is people writing "disclaimer" when they really mean "disclosure". A disclaimer denies responsibility. So if you're including a disclaimer that you work for Google, you're essentially saying that you take no responsibility for the consequences of your comment because of your employer.

a1369209993 5y ago
Charitably, I think the idea is something along the lines of: "Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for you mistakenly assuming that this comment is a independent review by someone unaffiliated and impartial.". (Though practically, it's probably just sloppy phrasing in a context where that sloppiness isn't much of a problem.)