10 ms·

Comment in relation to the comments in this thread: What is it with all the Googlers systematically prefacing their comments with "Opinions are my own"? Is tha

Comment in relation to the comments in this thread: What is it with all the Googlers systematically prefacing their comments with "Opinions are my own"? Is that some kind of policy at Google? It's so ubiquitous now that it feels almost like some kind of humble brag.

andrewxdiamond 4y ago
If you identify yourself as a Googler without disclosing that you are not speaking on behalf of the company, you leave the window open for people to think you _are_. Which is a no-no of course. The standard cop out is to say that line even when it’s completely unnecessary. It’s just easier to add it than consider how your words may be missunderstood.
- gorgoiler 4y ago
  At a high level there’s some dissonance between having such a strong bond with one’s employer that one would identify as an employee of theirs, socially, outside of work, but also claim to still be independent enough of the employer to have independent thoughts on technical matters directly related to the employer. If you wore an I’m with her! tee, you would not claim to have a neutral opinion on politics.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    This is an incredibly uncharitable reading of the situation. It's like you're being deliberately obtuse. Someone literally explained to you that it's a matter of transparency, and you're jumping to, "well obviously they're just bootlickers".
    - gorgoiler 4y ago
      “Bootlickers” is pretty unkind. If you work for Google, comment in public on Google stuff, with an account that says “I work for Google!”, I would say it is not possible for you to remain independent, no matter what kind of spell-of-disclaiming is attached to your post. When it comes to Google matters, one either comments as a Google employee, or not at all. It comes across as distasteful to try to do wade in while waving off claims of bias with “opinions are my own” with the implication that they are unbiased. Maybe what these people mean is: I work at Google so this is biased towards them, but they didn’t tell me to write this, and perhaps I should be reading it that way?
      - TulliusCicero 4y ago
        > I would say it is not possible for you to remain independent Good thing nobody said this, then. They're just making it clear that they're not explicitly relaying company opinion. > with the implication that they are unbiased. Nobody's trying to imply this. Obviously if you work at company X, you're gonna have at least some subconscious bias. The point is to make your potential bias transparent, so others can judge for themselves. > I work at Google so this is biased towards them, but they didn’t tell me to write this Yes, though of course the amount of bias can vary. I used to work at Amazon, and my opinion of Amazon didn't seem to significantly change when I started working there, or when I left. (Of course some people develop a more negative opinion of a company after working there, rather than a positive one)
      - tyrfing 4y ago
        I think you're misunderstanding. It's about making it very clear that you aren't speaking on behalf of the company. It might seem like anyone reasonable would understand that, but that would just mean there are a lot of unreasonable people in the world. I'd say that a situation where you feel the need to add that sort of disclaimer generally means you should keep your mouth shut, but stopping people from talking about things they know about will never happen. In other industries, you'll find similar boilerplate disclaimers like "this is not investment advice." Particularly amusing when it is attached to even character-limited tweets.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    If someone spoke of Google -without- disclosing that Google is their employer, and that was later found out, do you think that might change your view of their statement? To borrow your broken analogy and fix it, if someone were to post "Hey, here are all the reasons I'm voting for (candidate) and I think you should too", and didn't disclose that they work for that candidate's campaign, don't you think any credibility they might have had is gone once it's found out?
    - gorgoiler 4y ago
      Opine or don’t opine. Disclose or don’t disclose. These are pretty hard options and missing the point. What I’m getting at is that opining, disclosing, but then claiming the opinions are unbiased just does not compute.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Who is claiming there opinions are unbiased? We are explicitly saying we probably are biased. It’s hard to be unbiased toward a company that is paying you over a quarter million dollars a year - I’m not claiming or not claiming that’s what I make (I’m not a “software engineer” by title), it’s just the typical compensation of even a mid level software engineer in tech in the US at one of the BigTech companies.
      - bigDinosaur 4y ago
        I assume you mean it seems biased because it implies that the poster has different views to Google even if they actually have the exact same views as Google. I kind of get that, it implies a level of distance which may not actually be true. However I do think that's at least a bit uncharitable. But also there is a good point there.
    - 8note 4y ago
      I'd generally still think it's their own opinion. Especially if it's critical
      - Thorrez 4y ago
  - 8note 4y ago
    the individual's opinion isnt necessarily the same as the . If you're wearing an I'm with her! tee, you also aren't her spokesperson. It's not neutrality, it's non-representative
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    The point of the "my thoughts" disclaimer isn't to claim you're neutral. The point is to say the company hasn't approved your statement, so it shouldn't be taken as an official company position. The point of the "I work at X" disclaimer is to explicitly point out that you do have a conflict of interest that the reader needs to be aware of. Disclaimer: I work at Google and my thoughts are my own. ;)
    - tasuki 4y ago
      Why would anyone presume a statement made by an individual to have been made on behalf of a company? (Unless it's on the company's blog or social media, or unless explicitly mentioned that the individual is speaking on behalf of the company.) Disclaimer: All my opinions are Google's ;)
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        There are examples from nindalf and freedomben above. Why do people think it? If they see me say "I work at Google" in the comment, and then say some sort of opinion or recommendation or prediction, they might think that that's an opinion that's widely held or officially promoted within Google, or that the recommendation is something that Google recommends or that the prediction is something Google predicts. The sentence "I work at Google" could be thought of as something I'm invoking to say "I'm an authority believe me", or "I work at Google, so I can provide you info from Google", rather than a disclaimer about a conflict of interest. That's why "I work at Google" is often followed by "but my thoughts are my own".
  - blep_ 4y ago
    The phrase "identify yourself as" refers to making it explicitly known that you are in that group. The phrase "identify as" refers to considering that a nontrivial part of one's identity. These are separate concepts that happen to use similar wording.
gorgoiler 4y ago
It is only two people :) I remember a time when I was younger and I too would present much of my persona as being based in the company for which I worked. As time passes this fades significantly. I feel much more like my own person now, from whom my employer benefits, and not the other way around. Delusions of grandeur? Moi? Or the true wisdom of age? Why not both!
- noduerme 4y ago
  This is interesting. I think it's a healthy way of looking at things, and a good development. I'm always a bit curious about people complaining that "everyone defines themselves by their job", because I come from a blue collar background and I never wanted to do that - just the opposite. My job is what I do, not who I am. I write code; I'm good at it, but I don't view myself as any different from a car mechanic who's good at his job. And as I rose in rank, I never had the temptation to introduce myself as "CTO of X". But that wasn't because I wasn't proud of it. It's because I was suspicious of people. I've always wanted to see what other people made of me and how they acted towards me based on how they encountered me, without knowing my job or title. Partly this was to avoid people who are only interested in associating themselves with people they think can help them; partly it was to gauge whether I was still a decent and smart enough guy to be worth their time at face value. Occasionally it was to create simpatico with plumbers and mechanics. But I still refer to myself in most introductions as a former waiter, bartender and taxi driver who picked up some code in my free time, and unless someone knows me for a few months and I trust them, they wouldn't know what I actually did for a living. [edited for clarity]
- scarface74 4y ago
  It has nothing to do with “delusions of grandeur” or bragging about the company you work for. Most large tech companies tell you during your onboarding to disclose where you work and disclaim opinions as your own anytime you speak publicly about them. Especially in my case, I do speak for the company in a limited scope when I am working with one of our customers or when I do approved communications in the form of blog posts, presentations, etc. I’ve worked for 8 companies over 25+ years. The current company I work at (AWS) is another means for me to exchange labor for money.
kyrra 4y ago
Part of our employee agreement says we have to state it whenever we talk about Google in a public forum. I feel like it's meant to provide Google a level of protection in case we say something stupid. Previous companies I worked at (like Cisco) explicitly said in my employment contract that I couldn't post things online about the company without prior approval from PR or whoever. Part of why I do it is also so people know I may be biased as I'm financially motivated to have Google seen in a positive light and be successful.
skirmish 4y ago
An internal page on "posting about work on your personal accounts" has this as the first suggestion among 20 or so points about "dos and don'ts". Also includes sections such as "suggestions for content to post", "how to respond to questions from candidates" etc.
- alskdjflaskjdhf 4y ago
  It's also emphasized in the onboarding materials which is probably more impactful than an internal policy page.
scarface74 4y ago
I do the same thing anytime I post about AWS or a direct competitor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31279881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31279881 We are specifically told to disclaim that we don’t speak for AWS when we speak on social media about anything related to the company. Even if not, if I say something positive or get in a discussion about AWS on Hacker News that is opinion based, I disclaim so people can consider my biases (“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”) Also when I post on r/aws, I sometimes disclaim. It depends on the question. If someone ask “how can I stop API Gateway from timing out after 30 seconds?” - ie something that can be answered factually (you can’t) and post documentation, I don’t bother about saying where I work. On the other hand, if someone asks, “what are the steps I need to take to improve security on AWS?”. Then my usual reply starts off with, “I am a consultant in Professional Services at AWS, I’m not your consultant. All opinions are my own”. The last thing I need is to be in the middle of a controversy because a company got breached based on taking my very generic advice and saying they were listening to me.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  Why did you feel compelled to disclose on HR where you work at all? I work at a large tech firm with a household name. I’ve never disclosed that here (and many other places). And I say what I want without any need for disclosure.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It’s more honest. When I got into discussions about “cloud” and specifically AWS before I started working at AWS two years ago, I was just telling my opinions. But it’s different now, I have a vested interest in AWS succeeding. Wouldn’t you think it was kind of dishonest if I said “I think everyone should move to the cloud” (I wouldn’t say that) and not disclose my biases? Most of my arguments are much more subtle. But I would rather err on the side of disclosing than people think I’m astroturfing. There are lots of people on HN that work at companies that get discussed all of the time. It would be dishonest if we didn’t say where we worked when talking about them.
nindalf 4y ago
The company and employee both want it to be clear that the employee doesn’t speak for the whole company. This is because people attribute the actions of one person to the whole group. An example from the HN page yesterday - Microsoft insults dev, then takes credit for his idea (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31284419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31284419). The title was changed later by HN mods to something less incendiary. But the point stands. 1 person working at Microsoft out of 182k said something sarcastic. That sarcasm was interpreted as an insult. Then the entire organisation was blamed (Microsoft insults dev). This happens because it’s easier for us to think reductively. Nuance is too much effort. That’s why employees go to great lengths to add these disclaimers every comment.
- freedomben 4y ago
  Yep. I worked at Red hat for a while, and anytime I would comment on any post that had anything to do with something that Red hat had to do with, I would have people accuse me of being deceptive by not putting a disclaimer up, Even though in many of those cases it felt stupid to do so. The point at which I started doing it religiously though, was after I made a comment about one of Red hat's competitors. Somebody wrote another post where they talked about Red hat employee Said certain things, so that's the red hat perspective or that's what red hat thinks or something like that. I want to make absolutely clear that everybody reading anything I write knows that I do not speak officially for Red hat. My opinions are truly my own.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I disclose. But I never ever say anything negative about a competitive division of another company. Meaning I might say something negative about Google, but not GCP. It just feels crass.
    - freedomben 4y ago
      Yes I agree and I should clarify, it wasn't a negative comment that people started saying was "Red Hat's" opinion. I likewise don't say anything negative about a competitor (though I may state uncontroversial facts that could seem negative, like "xyz's quarterly earnings were a lot lower than wall street expectations and that sent their stock down." The comment I was referring to above was this (which was several years ago for time reference)): "VMware seems to dominate the bare metal landscape. Even though Red Hat has a competing product, there's still a ton of customers that want to run OpenShift on top of VMware so we end up working with it a fair amount. They made some design decisions that I wouldn't have made, but overall it's solid technology if you don't mind proprietary." I didn't (and still don't) think that was a negative comment. It felt very factual and fair to me. But "overall it's solid technology" is my opinion, not Red Hat's, and it seems ridiculous to me that people would say it was Red Hat's opinion, but ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zionic 4y ago
I first noticed it in Twitter bios, and seemingly among the far-left crowd.
passivate 4y ago
I think its just a legal thing. You don't want "Google says ___" headlines based on internet comments from employees. In any case, if I was a Google employee, I'd want to hide the fact.
- cwzwarich 4y ago
  That doesn’t stop “Google engineer says…”
  - passivate 4y ago
    Is there any precedent on that?
wjamesg 4y ago
It certainly comes across as humblebrag

andrewxdiamond 4y ago

If you identify yourself as a Googler without disclosing that you are not speaking on behalf of the company, you leave the window open for people to think you _are_. Which is a no-no of course. The standard cop out is to say that line even when it’s completely unnecessary. It’s just easier to add it than consider how your words may be missunderstood.

gorgoiler 4y ago
At a high level there’s some dissonance between having such a strong bond with one’s employer that one would identify as an employee of theirs, socially, outside of work, but also claim to still be independent enough of the employer to have independent thoughts on technical matters directly related to the employer. If you wore an I’m with her! tee, you would not claim to have a neutral opinion on politics.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  This is an incredibly uncharitable reading of the situation. It's like you're being deliberately obtuse. Someone literally explained to you that it's a matter of transparency, and you're jumping to, "well obviously they're just bootlickers".
  - gorgoiler 4y ago
    “Bootlickers” is pretty unkind. If you work for Google, comment in public on Google stuff, with an account that says “I work for Google!”, I would say it is not possible for you to remain independent, no matter what kind of spell-of-disclaiming is attached to your post. When it comes to Google matters, one either comments as a Google employee, or not at all. It comes across as distasteful to try to do wade in while waving off claims of bias with “opinions are my own” with the implication that they are unbiased. Maybe what these people mean is: I work at Google so this is biased towards them, but they didn’t tell me to write this, and perhaps I should be reading it that way?
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      > I would say it is not possible for you to remain independent Good thing nobody said this, then. They're just making it clear that they're not explicitly relaying company opinion. > with the implication that they are unbiased. Nobody's trying to imply this. Obviously if you work at company X, you're gonna have at least some subconscious bias. The point is to make your potential bias transparent, so others can judge for themselves. > I work at Google so this is biased towards them, but they didn’t tell me to write this Yes, though of course the amount of bias can vary. I used to work at Amazon, and my opinion of Amazon didn't seem to significantly change when I started working there, or when I left. (Of course some people develop a more negative opinion of a company after working there, rather than a positive one)
    - tyrfing 4y ago
      I think you're misunderstanding. It's about making it very clear that you aren't speaking on behalf of the company. It might seem like anyone reasonable would understand that, but that would just mean there are a lot of unreasonable people in the world. I'd say that a situation where you feel the need to add that sort of disclaimer generally means you should keep your mouth shut, but stopping people from talking about things they know about will never happen. In other industries, you'll find similar boilerplate disclaimers like "this is not investment advice." Particularly amusing when it is attached to even character-limited tweets.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  If someone spoke of Google -without- disclosing that Google is their employer, and that was later found out, do you think that might change your view of their statement? To borrow your broken analogy and fix it, if someone were to post "Hey, here are all the reasons I'm voting for (candidate) and I think you should too", and didn't disclose that they work for that candidate's campaign, don't you think any credibility they might have had is gone once it's found out?
  - gorgoiler 4y ago
    Opine or don’t opine. Disclose or don’t disclose. These are pretty hard options and missing the point. What I’m getting at is that opining, disclosing, but then claiming the opinions are unbiased just does not compute.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Who is claiming there opinions are unbiased? We are explicitly saying we probably are biased. It’s hard to be unbiased toward a company that is paying you over a quarter million dollars a year - I’m not claiming or not claiming that’s what I make (I’m not a “software engineer” by title), it’s just the typical compensation of even a mid level software engineer in tech in the US at one of the BigTech companies.
    - bigDinosaur 4y ago
      I assume you mean it seems biased because it implies that the poster has different views to Google even if they actually have the exact same views as Google. I kind of get that, it implies a level of distance which may not actually be true. However I do think that's at least a bit uncharitable. But also there is a good point there.
  - 8note 4y ago
    I'd generally still think it's their own opinion. Especially if it's critical
    - Thorrez 4y ago
- 8note 4y ago
  the individual's opinion isnt necessarily the same as the . If you're wearing an I'm with her! tee, you also aren't her spokesperson. It's not neutrality, it's non-representative
- Thorrez 4y ago
  The point of the "my thoughts" disclaimer isn't to claim you're neutral. The point is to say the company hasn't approved your statement, so it shouldn't be taken as an official company position. The point of the "I work at X" disclaimer is to explicitly point out that you do have a conflict of interest that the reader needs to be aware of. Disclaimer: I work at Google and my thoughts are my own. ;)
  - tasuki 4y ago
    Why would anyone presume a statement made by an individual to have been made on behalf of a company? (Unless it's on the company's blog or social media, or unless explicitly mentioned that the individual is speaking on behalf of the company.) Disclaimer: All my opinions are Google's ;)
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      There are examples from nindalf and freedomben above. Why do people think it? If they see me say "I work at Google" in the comment, and then say some sort of opinion or recommendation or prediction, they might think that that's an opinion that's widely held or officially promoted within Google, or that the recommendation is something that Google recommends or that the prediction is something Google predicts. The sentence "I work at Google" could be thought of as something I'm invoking to say "I'm an authority believe me", or "I work at Google, so I can provide you info from Google", rather than a disclaimer about a conflict of interest. That's why "I work at Google" is often followed by "but my thoughts are my own".
- blep_ 4y ago
  The phrase "identify yourself as" refers to making it explicitly known that you are in that group. The phrase "identify as" refers to considering that a nontrivial part of one's identity. These are separate concepts that happen to use similar wording.

gorgoiler 4y ago

It is only two people :) I remember a time when I was younger and I too would present much of my persona as being based in the company for which I worked. As time passes this fades significantly. I feel much more like my own person now, from whom my employer benefits, and not the other way around. Delusions of grandeur? Moi? Or the true wisdom of age? Why not both!

noduerme 4y ago
This is interesting. I think it's a healthy way of looking at things, and a good development. I'm always a bit curious about people complaining that "everyone defines themselves by their job", because I come from a blue collar background and I never wanted to do that - just the opposite. My job is what I do, not who I am. I write code; I'm good at it, but I don't view myself as any different from a car mechanic who's good at his job. And as I rose in rank, I never had the temptation to introduce myself as "CTO of X". But that wasn't because I wasn't proud of it. It's because I was suspicious of people. I've always wanted to see what other people made of me and how they acted towards me based on how they encountered me, without knowing my job or title. Partly this was to avoid people who are only interested in associating themselves with people they think can help them; partly it was to gauge whether I was still a decent and smart enough guy to be worth their time at face value. Occasionally it was to create simpatico with plumbers and mechanics. But I still refer to myself in most introductions as a former waiter, bartender and taxi driver who picked up some code in my free time, and unless someone knows me for a few months and I trust them, they wouldn't know what I actually did for a living. [edited for clarity]
scarface74 4y ago
It has nothing to do with “delusions of grandeur” or bragging about the company you work for. Most large tech companies tell you during your onboarding to disclose where you work and disclaim opinions as your own anytime you speak publicly about them. Especially in my case, I do speak for the company in a limited scope when I am working with one of our customers or when I do approved communications in the form of blog posts, presentations, etc. I’ve worked for 8 companies over 25+ years. The current company I work at (AWS) is another means for me to exchange labor for money.

kyrra 4y ago

Part of our employee agreement says we have to state it whenever we talk about Google in a public forum. I feel like it's meant to provide Google a level of protection in case we say something stupid. Previous companies I worked at (like Cisco) explicitly said in my employment contract that I couldn't post things online about the company without prior approval from PR or whoever. Part of why I do it is also so people know I may be biased as I'm financially motivated to have Google seen in a positive light and be successful.

skirmish 4y ago

An internal page on "posting about work on your personal accounts" has this as the first suggestion among 20 or so points about "dos and don'ts". Also includes sections such as "suggestions for content to post", "how to respond to questions from candidates" etc.

alskdjflaskjdhf 4y ago
It's also emphasized in the onboarding materials which is probably more impactful than an internal policy page.

scarface74 4y ago

I do the same thing anytime I post about AWS or a direct competitor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31279881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31279881 We are specifically told to disclaim that we don’t speak for AWS when we speak on social media about anything related to the company. Even if not, if I say something positive or get in a discussion about AWS on Hacker News that is opinion based, I disclaim so people can consider my biases (“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”) Also when I post on r/aws, I sometimes disclaim. It depends on the question. If someone ask “how can I stop API Gateway from timing out after 30 seconds?” - ie something that can be answered factually (you can’t) and post documentation, I don’t bother about saying where I work. On the other hand, if someone asks, “what are the steps I need to take to improve security on AWS?”. Then my usual reply starts off with, “I am a consultant in Professional Services at AWS, I’m not your consultant. All opinions are my own”. The last thing I need is to be in the middle of a controversy because a company got breached based on taking my very generic advice and saying they were listening to me.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
Why did you feel compelled to disclose on HR where you work at all? I work at a large tech firm with a household name. I’ve never disclosed that here (and many other places). And I say what I want without any need for disclosure.
- scarface74 4y ago
  It’s more honest. When I got into discussions about “cloud” and specifically AWS before I started working at AWS two years ago, I was just telling my opinions. But it’s different now, I have a vested interest in AWS succeeding. Wouldn’t you think it was kind of dishonest if I said “I think everyone should move to the cloud” (I wouldn’t say that) and not disclose my biases? Most of my arguments are much more subtle. But I would rather err on the side of disclosing than people think I’m astroturfing. There are lots of people on HN that work at companies that get discussed all of the time. It would be dishonest if we didn’t say where we worked when talking about them.

nindalf 4y ago

The company and employee both want it to be clear that the employee doesn’t speak for the whole company. This is because people attribute the actions of one person to the whole group. An example from the HN page yesterday - Microsoft insults dev, then takes credit for his idea (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31284419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31284419). The title was changed later by HN mods to something less incendiary. But the point stands. 1 person working at Microsoft out of 182k said something sarcastic. That sarcasm was interpreted as an insult. Then the entire organisation was blamed (Microsoft insults dev). This happens because it’s easier for us to think reductively. Nuance is too much effort. That’s why employees go to great lengths to add these disclaimers every comment.

freedomben 4y ago
Yep. I worked at Red hat for a while, and anytime I would comment on any post that had anything to do with something that Red hat had to do with, I would have people accuse me of being deceptive by not putting a disclaimer up, Even though in many of those cases it felt stupid to do so. The point at which I started doing it religiously though, was after I made a comment about one of Red hat's competitors. Somebody wrote another post where they talked about Red hat employee Said certain things, so that's the red hat perspective or that's what red hat thinks or something like that. I want to make absolutely clear that everybody reading anything I write knows that I do not speak officially for Red hat. My opinions are truly my own.
- scarface74 4y ago
  I disclose. But I never ever say anything negative about a competitive division of another company. Meaning I might say something negative about Google, but not GCP. It just feels crass.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    Yes I agree and I should clarify, it wasn't a negative comment that people started saying was "Red Hat's" opinion. I likewise don't say anything negative about a competitor (though I may state uncontroversial facts that could seem negative, like "xyz's quarterly earnings were a lot lower than wall street expectations and that sent their stock down." The comment I was referring to above was this (which was several years ago for time reference)): "VMware seems to dominate the bare metal landscape. Even though Red Hat has a competing product, there's still a ton of customers that want to run OpenShift on top of VMware so we end up working with it a fair amount. They made some design decisions that I wouldn't have made, but overall it's solid technology if you don't mind proprietary." I didn't (and still don't) think that was a negative comment. It felt very factual and fair to me. But "overall it's solid technology" is my opinion, not Red Hat's, and it seems ridiculous to me that people would say it was Red Hat's opinion, but ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zionic 4y ago

I first noticed it in Twitter bios, and seemingly among the far-left crowd.

passivate 4y ago

I think its just a legal thing. You don't want "Google says ___" headlines based on internet comments from employees. In any case, if I was a Google employee, I'd want to hide the fact.

cwzwarich 4y ago
That doesn’t stop “Google engineer says…”
- passivate 4y ago
  Is there any precedent on that?

wjamesg 4y ago

It certainly comes across as humblebrag