I put my disclaimer in my profile and I usually make it obvious from my comment I work for Google, but I really tire of putting a disclaimer in each and every message, it gets tedious after a while.

Perhaps HN should implement some kind of badget/sigfile/etc extension for this purpose.

But I'll also note that in my response, I didn't comment on whether or not what Google was going is a good thing, or even going about it in the right way, I merely commented that the information being speculated on is inaccurate and that there was a crypto-conference presentation that gave some details of what Google is doing that contradict what some of the commenters imply.

I actually understand the skepticism and I think it is related to the secrecy of the mechanism and if a peer reviewed paper were published, it might do much more to alleviate fears.

And I also upvoted your comment because I thought it was valuable and noteworthy. :) I really wasn't meaning to be critical to you in my response here.

HN seems kind of hesitant to add additional profile tools beyond the usual. I'm not sure if that's part of it's charm or a detriment. I think having a sig line on every comment might be tedious, and FWIW, I don't think it should be obligatory to attach your employer to every comment on every post on HN. There's a lot that's simply not remotely relevant.

Should HN have an employer field next to user names, like the domain field next to the article name? It may have helped with the recent Docker issue.

I don't think there's a lot of benefit to this. People would still debate whether or not they needed to disclose. Some people believe that if their posts are their personal views, they don't need to disclose. People might be more likely to use throwaway accounts for personal opinions or posts on unrelated topics. Since HN doesn't mandate any of this be provided (or accurate), it becomes useless. I usually don't disclose my employer on my profile... but I don't work at a startup or major tech company and no companies discussed here have any sort of relationship with mine.

I think people should disclose they work for a company they are defending the position of online. But I don't see a way to force that issue in an environment that permits anon accounts.

I dunno, either people are there companies or they aren't.

I am not my company, and a lot of people elsewhere aren't either. I don't think who we work for is really relevant at all unless they are trying to make offical statements.

Either engage on the merits or don't. "Ignore this guy, he works for X" is not a useful line of argumentation.

The only thing putting company names next to things would create, IMHO, is an echo chamber.

(This is very different than journalists being paid to write specific articles or funded to do specific research, or even people paid quite specifically to astroturf)

If we believe it's some magical generalized conflict of interest, why stop at company names.

In any article about NIMBYism, should we require people post whjether they rent/own/own a home > 2 million/whatever. etc

IMHO it's completely irrelevant to the merits of their argument. The merits don't change one way or the other. It seems the only usefulness would be able to filter/confirm biases. At that point, why bother having a discussion.

One highlight point to me, is that as an employee posting on an identifiable account, you have two options: Convey the same view as your employer, or remain silent lest you risk being fired. (No matter how much a company claims this isn't the case, it pretty much is, particularly revolving around talk about that employer specifically.) I doubt there exists a public post where a Googler says they think Google should be broken up Ma Bell style, or where they state that Google's attitude on privacy is broken and wrong; anyone who said such would no longer be a Googler. And of course, since you're surrounded 8+ hours a day by people who generally find your employer and it's practices agreeable, you've got a natural bias anyways.

Therefore, the participation of employees adds a lean in their favor, and disclosure, if it doesn't neutralize it, at least flags it so people are aware.

Mind you, knowing you're a Googler, I did upvote your original comment, because I thought it was accurate and had value. And I do see the concern about people being dismissive of others based on their employers, particularly in comments not directly related to the topic being discussed. (Imagine trying to comment here with "Uber, Inc." after your name.)

"Convey the same view as your employer, or remain silent lest you risk being fired. (No matter how much a company claims this isn't the case, it pretty much is, particularly revolving around talk about that employer specifically.) I doubt there exists a public post where a Googler says they think Google should be broken up Ma Bell style, or where they state that Google's attitude on privacy is broken and wrong"

You are wrong on both points, FWIW :) But it's definitely true at other companies.

" And I do see the concern about people being dismissive of others based on their employers, particularly in comments not directly related to the topic being discussed."

Given another person just literally said to me "the opinion is less valuable because you work for X", i'm much more worried about this attitude than i am the one where people are biased towards their companies.

Most people in tech are not true believers. Most probably like their companies. But that doesn't mean they agree with what their companies do all the time. Especially in a company the size of, say, Google, it's pretty, IMHO, silly to think that among 150k of those people, there is no dissent, or not even a lot of dissent, all the time.