3 ms·

This is PG. If he doesn't think it is just a bunch of well-meaning commenters coincidentally behind the same NAT, then I am inclined to believe him. Anyway, d

by jlgreco 13y ago

This is PG. If he doesn't think it is just a bunch of well-meaning commenters coincidentally behind the same NAT, then I am inclined to believe him. Anyway, do you know what I do when there are discussions online about my employer? I stay the fuck out of it. I think that is good policy, unless participating in those discussions is part of your job description. Best case scenario here: a bunch of well-meaning Microsoft employees got into an internet fight, got mistaken for a sockpuppet ring, and got a discussion about their company pushed off of HN? If that's in their job description, I don't know why they're still getting paid; if it isn't, maybe they should consider spectating next time.

Anderkent 13y ago
> Anyway, do you know what I do when there are discussions online about my employer? I stay the fuck out of it. That's a shame, since as an employee you have an unique and very valuable perspective on the company. Why not participate, perhaps add a disclaimer?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I understand that perspective, but what I know is either public knowledge, or behind a few NDAs. Furthermore, my employer politely asks that I don't, and I'd rather not anyway. Online PR, no matter how unofficial, isn't something that I am comfortable with.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Public doesn't mean widely-known. And I feel vaguely uneasy at the idea that everything not explicity public would be NDA. That said, I fully respect the preference not to and the request not to.
eksith 13y ago
Anyway, do you know what I do when there are discussions online about my employer? I stay the fuck out of it. This is an excellent policy. Employee participation (unless they're CEO/Founder, CTO or some combination thereof that can speak with authority) will almost invariably lead to problems. It's good that some employees feel "passionate" and "enthusiastic" about their company/product, but if that's left unchecked and they refuse to remain objective, it will not prevent the thread from going up in a passionate and enthusiastic fire ball. Same applies to social media.
- yuhong 13y ago
  I don't think this is good policy in this day and age.

by jlgreco 13y ago

Anderkent 13y ago

> Anyway, do you know what I do when there are discussions online about my employer? I stay the fuck out of it. That's a shame, since as an employee you have an unique and very valuable perspective on the company. Why not participate, perhaps add a disclaimer?

jlgreco 13y ago
I understand that perspective, but what I know is either public knowledge, or behind a few NDAs. Furthermore, my employer politely asks that I don't, and I'd rather not anyway. Online PR, no matter how unofficial, isn't something that I am comfortable with.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Public doesn't mean widely-known. And I feel vaguely uneasy at the idea that everything not explicity public would be NDA. That said, I fully respect the preference not to and the request not to.

eksith 13y ago

Anyway, do you know what I do when there are discussions online about my employer? I stay the fuck out of it. This is an excellent policy. Employee participation (unless they're CEO/Founder, CTO or some combination thereof that can speak with authority) will almost invariably lead to problems. It's good that some employees feel "passionate" and "enthusiastic" about their company/product, but if that's left unchecked and they refuse to remain objective, it will not prevent the thread from going up in a passionate and enthusiastic fire ball. Same applies to social media.

yuhong 13y ago
I don't think this is good policy in this day and age.