3 ms·
> 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) a
by H8crilA 6y 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 6y ago[deleted]
- hoten 6y agoThat'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 6y agoI'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