Sure, if I started writing my opinion on the case of course I would include it

A simple rule that I follow:

I disclose all affiliations when there is a reasonable chance that others might consider it deceptive if I didn't disclose my biases and they were later discovered.

In longer format:

Sometimes, it isn't even an affiliation with a specific company and I'll simply type something like, 'I admit my bias(es).'

For the former an example might be, 'I was an early investor in Tesla and continue to own shares. This may bias my opinions.'

Basically, if in doubt, disclose affiliations and biases due to those affiliations. Sometimes affiliations mean the bias is a negative reaction, it's not always a positive response. 'I have previously worked with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and my opinion may be biased based on those experiences.'

If someone could later learn you were affiliated and say, 'Well, that explains their post!' it's probably better to have disclosed the affiliations in the first place.

This post is just meant to share how I do it and why I do it. You can, of course, disclose what you want. I think it is customary to make such disclosures on HN. It is in your profile, but I'm not sure many people check profiles.

But you have been stating your opinions here, without including the disclaimer that you're an Uber employee. The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments.

"The standard procedure is to put your disclaimer within your comment as people typically don't automatically lookup a commenter's profile when reading his/her comments"

No, it isn't. (it is if you are a journalist with a conflict of interest, which he isn't).

The second it is, i'm out.

Because there's no reason you should care.

It's just another excuse for people to be able to dismiss what others say without having to think critically about it. If you want to engage on the merits, do it.

Everyone and everything is biased. Both consciously and not. If you want to say "hey, i read the article and i think your take is wrong", awesome, do that. His take isn't any righter or wronger because he's an uber engineer, and the whole point of a discussion forum like this is, in fact, to have critical thinking. Otherwise it's just another worthless echo chamber.

(I'm going to completely and totally ignore the "people also aren't their jobs" part of this).

So instead of caring about his day job, IMHO, you should do the critical thinking and engage in the discussion for real.

It's not about condemning bias, qualifying the rightness/wrongness of comment or "caring about his day job" but about arguments in good faith. Not declaring affiliations or potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact.

It doesn't have to be in more formal settings such as in publications by journalists - I also see disclaimers stated by others in HN comments often.

Arguments in good faith do not require source disclaimers. That's the very definition of good faith.

"potential conflicts of interests makes people ascribe negative intentions or deceptive motives to you (even when not necessarily the case) if they discover it after the fact."

This is, in my experience, nonsense. The only thing disclaimers add to a good faith discussion is the ability of people to do exactly what you claim they'll do "after the fact", during the discussion. Please stare at any comment with a disclaimer from a group people don't like (uber, for example), and count how many comments are about where they work instead of their argument.

IE They are upset they turned out to agree with someone that belongs to some group they don't like, or whatever.

It is also against the very definition of good faith you describe to do that kind of thing "after the fact", regardless of who you are. The fact that you believe disclaimers are necessary to a good faith discussion means you aren't actually having discussions in good faith.

Is source evaluation not part of critical thinking these days?

It certainly was in all my research courses when I was in school.

Or do you just mean I should have to click to do the source evaluation?

For unverifiable claims, perhaps, but it's usually far better to simply ignore all unverifiable claims in the first place. It's not useful in debate, either, better to simply to stick to debating what facts (if any) formed an opinion, as at least those can be researched.

What does it matter? There's no claim of journalistic integrity or lack of bias in internet comments.

Would we like to know when bias exists? Sure.

Do we need to castigate those who neglect to comment on their own bias? I don't think it's necessary.

There's no standard procedure. You're making things up.

s/standard/accepted, usual/, and it does hold up. Not everything that's generally followed here is codified.

Uh, "Not looking good for Waymo..." is absolutely your opinion.

It's my opinion too, and I think Uber are a bunch of baddy bad-bads.

Since this case began I've been waiting for Waymo to drop the bomb, and no bomb has materialized. Levandowski is in trouble, but what is it again that Waymo has to levy against Uber? I'm not seeing much.

But seriously, judge a person's comments on the merits of their argument, not who they work for.

> But seriously, judge a person's comments on the merits of their argument, not who they work for.

Undisclosed conflicts of interest are a huge red flag. Selectively posting critical comments about your competitors is pretty shady. Doing it without disclosure of the bias is very shady.

Whoa, there. This is just a casual HN comment thread, I don't think we need to be getting that uptight. Maybe the subject has primed you all to make believe as super serious lawyers, but we all know opinions expressed here really don't count for much. It certainly won't have any influence on the outcome of the case.

It's not like his bias was that hard to figure out, all you had to do was open his user profile. If there are genuine Uber astroturfers creeping around they wouldn't be that easy to unmask.

I don't agree. It's shady regardless. It doesn't have to be "genuine" astroturfing, whatever that is. If I were posting snarky comments about my competitors and not disclosing my conflict of interest in the comment, I'd fully expect people to call me out on my behavior.

My employer (Microsoft) has a serious policy about disclosing employment if making comments about our products or our competitors' products online, because it otherwise reflects very poorly both on the individual and the company.

Of course, Uber's track record of ethical conduct is pretty spotty. It's not surprising that some of their employees wouldn't see the issue with posting negative comments without disclosure about not just competitors but competitors waging active legal battles against Uber.

You just went on the attack against an Uber employee without disclosing that you work for Microsoft in your previous comment. You literally just committed the sin you're accusing someone else of.

Worse, Uber doesn't have that policy. Microsoft does. Uber doesn't have to obey Microsoft's arbitrary made up rules. You're just looking for an excuse to hurt somebody, while ironically, and with total lack of self awareness accusing them of being ethically challenged.

And maybe you've forgotten what Microsoft did to get where it is today. Because in the 90s it was just as ethically challenged as Uber is now.

1. Criticizing an Uber employee is not the same as criticizing Uber.

2. Uber and Microsoft aren’t really competitors.

> Worse, Uber doesn't have that policy. Microsoft does. Uber doesn't have to obey Microsoft's arbitrary made up rules. You're just looking for an excuse to hurt somebody, while ironically, and with total lack of self awareness accusing them of being ethically challenged.

You have no idea whether Uber has this policy. It’s also not an arbitrary policy. It’s expected among reasonable people to reveal conflicts of interest. It’s why journalists and stock advisers clarify when they’re writing about their employers or stocks they hold. It’s why the FCC demands that sponsored tweets are labeled as such. And it’s why disclosure is very common here in HN. If Uber doesn’t have this policy, they should.

Accusing me of intentionally hurting others is just lame. I called out an inappropriate behavior while you’re now essentially engaging in an ad hominem attack.

> And maybe you've forgotten what Microsoft did to get where it is today. Because in the 90s it was just as ethically challenged as Uber is now.

Microsoft had one “ethically challenged” space, which was they they leveraged their monopoly power. Uber has bent or broken ethical standards over and over. They started by breaking laws in many of their markets. They’ve intentionally wasted competitors time and fuel by calling for cars and canceling. They’ve enabled their employees to stalk celebrities. They created greyball explicitly to evade law enforcement. And on and on. I don’t think Microsoft was ever as ethically challenged as Uber.