Same comment, I though I should also add this here:
One clearance, I don't say people do not comment. Maybe I did not write this clear enough. So let me:
Employees do comment. That is not the problem. What I am saying is why do we not see threads where employees actually discuss a product/procedure, and opine on how they can better that product/procedure. These are personal opinions and given this is not a blog and our identities are not out in the open (at least not immediately accessible), everybody can, while staying under the veil of HN, state their honest opinions. Much like anonymous surveys, but more detailed. Nobody has to disclose sensitive information, but opinions of employees do make a difference. I would like to see that on HN.
> ... opinions of employees do make a difference. I would like to see that on HN.
You won't see it, and the reasons are excellent. People who want to express their personal views, or even to influence corporate policies, are more effective if they aren't burdened by seeming to be corporate spokespeople.
At one extreme, it's sock-puppetry, meaning someone deliberately trying to hide their affiliation while representing a corporate viewpoint. The other extreme is an overreliance on a corporate connection to add weight to a view that would be more fairly evaluated on its direct merits.
The middle ground would be people announcing their affiliation only if the announcement contributes to balance and fairness, but who emphasize that their views are their own. That's the present system.
We do see such comments, but those who post them are understandably reluctant to reveal their affiliations. Also, such disclosures would be made only if they were germane to the point being made.
Imagine a post in a philosophy forum about the existential human condition. imagine that the poster begins by saying, "Full disclosure: I'm a human."
> If it doesn't violate the company principles (though I cannot see why it would) ...
It's easy to see how this would violate company policy as well as being a risky practice in general. Someone's personal view might end up seeming like an official corporate policy position.
Of course they do. They just don't point out that they are Apple, Google or MS employees. And I think it is pretty obvious why. One wrong comment from a "google employee" and the media will be all over him/her with headlines like "google employee admits NSA blah blah" or even worse, titles that end with questionmarks: "Google working on Antimatter Energy?"
I can attest to knowing at least a few examples of "people on HN who work for these companies but don't say so out of abject (and not misguided) fear that the rabid 'copy and paste' tech blogs that call themselves 'journalists' would take some random quote out of context and splatter it all over the web."
One clearance, I don't say people do not comment. Maybe I did not write this clear enough. So let me:
Employees do comment. That is not the problem. What I am saying is why do we not see threads where employees actually discuss a product/procedure, and opine on how they can better that product/procedure. These are personal opinions and given this is not a blog and our identities are not out in the open (at least not immediately accessible), everybody can, while staying under the veil of HN, state their honest opinions. Much like anonymous surveys, but more detailed. Nobody has to disclose sensitive information, but opinions of employees do make a difference. I would like to see that on HN.
https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/users&q=microsoft&st...
https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/users&q=adobe&start=...
https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/users&q=ibm&start=0
https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/users&q=apple&start=...
https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/users&q=google&start...
https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/users&q=facebook&sta...