[muyuu]

it's hilarious though

it's like people are LARPing a Fortune company CEO when they're giving their hot takes on social media

reminds me of Trump ending his wild takes on social media with "thank you for your attention to this matter" - so out of place, it makes it really funny

*typo

[PretzelPirate]

> it's like people are LARPing a Fortune company CEO when they're giving their hot takes on social media

At least in large tech companies, they have mandatory social media training where they explicitly tell employees to use phrases like "my views are my own" to keep it clear whether they're speaking on behalf of their employer or not.

[PKop]

Why would they be speaking on behalf of their employer? That is what would need a disclaimer not the common case. Besides, he can put it one time in his profile, not over and over again in every comment like he does. There is no expectation that some random employee is a spokesperson for Google on tech message board comment threads. It's just a way to brag.

[csa]

> Why would they be speaking on behalf of their employers?

Disclaimers aren’t there for folks who are thinking and acting rationally.

They are there for people who are thinking irrationally and/or manipulatively.

There are (relatively speaking) a lot of these people. They can chew up a lot of time and resources over what amounts to nothing.

Disclaimers like this can give a legal department the upper hand in cases like this

A few simple examples:

- There is a person I know who didn’t renew the contract of one of their reports. Pretty straightforward thing. The person whose contract was not renewed has been contesting this legally for over 10 years. The outcome is guaranteed to go against the person complaining, but they have time and money, so they tax the legal team of their former employer.

- There is a mid-sized organization that had a small legal team that had its plate full with regular business stuff. Despite settlements having NDAs, word got out that fairly light claims of sexual harassment and/or EEO complaints would yield relatively easy five-figure payments. Those complaints exploded, and some of the complaints were comical. For example, one manager represented a stance for the department to the C-suite that was 180 degrees opposite of what the group of three managers had agreed to prior. Lots of political capital and lots of time had to be used to clean up that mess. That person’s manager was accused of sex discrimination and age discrimination simply for asking the person why they did that (in a professional way, I might add). That person got a settlement, moved to a different department, and was effectively protected from administrative actions due to it being considered retaliation.

[Dylan16807]

Sounds like the company in the latter example really screwed up, but how does that connect to disclaimers? Is it just an example of malicious behavior?

[csa]

Great questions.

> Sounds like the company in the latter example really screwed up

Interesting. I think they made an unfortunate but sound decision based on their circumstances.

> but how does that connect to disclaimers?

It doesn’t directly.

> Is it just an example of malicious behavior?

Yes. It’s an example of how absolutely bat-shit crazy people can behave in ways that can tax a company’s legal team. Having folks use a disclaimer will almost certainly lighten some of this load in terms of defending against folks who weaponize online comments made by employees.

[Dylan16807]

It's the fact that they kept the employee around as a toxic asset/reminder that I think really puts it into "mistake" territory.

[operatingthetan]

If their name is on the post or their company is listed in their profile. The person above has neither as far as I can tell.

[muyuu]

i've worked in two different large tech companies

when i give my hot takes pseudonymously on social media these phrases would be nothing but a LARP

i don't put my real name here nor do i put my professional commitments in my profile, and neither does this guy

[PKop]

Exactly. There is no scenario where we should expect some random anon to be speaking for Google. When that is the case a disclaimer is warranted, not the common case of speaking for oneself. He can write it once in his profile if he's so worried about it, not every other comment like he does. It's just inflated self importance

[eklavya]

You seem smart and knowledgeable. Maybe you should reach the lawyers at these companies and then they can change the policy!

[PKop]

No I think it's made up, there is no policy, and the lawyers couldn't care less, it's just something people do to massage their own ego.

[eklavya]

I can tell you firsthand, it's not made up. Wait, did I just brag in your opinion?

[habinero]

It is absolutely not made up, and yes, some companies absolutely do care.

[dlgeek]

Nope. I previously worked at a very big tech company (not Google) and they definitely had guidance like that in the social media policy.