5 ms·

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 _

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

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.