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.
I don't think this is good policy in this day and age.
> 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?
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.
Re:Ask HN: Why the Microsoft hate?
by Dylan16807 on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @08:06AM
(#6598204)
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.
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.