Sure but that doesn't mean we shouldn't expect better or excuse it when we catch people doing it. The four big Tesla-y threads in the past 24 hours or so have had people with financial interests upvoted to the top comment.
ChuckMcM's comment was the top in this thread when I commented on it, and so was his comment in the Li-ion battery thread for a while.
Then simonsarris is at the top of both of these threads:
At least those were declared but really Hacker News can be better than that. I'm sure the bitcoin threads are even worse with conflicts of interest, but if I saw someone doing what ChuckMcM did in those threads I'd call it out there as well.
How do you know the other commentors in this thread don't have a position in Tesla?
As far as I'm concerned you didn't call anything out, merely pointed out that some forum commenters may have positions in the companies they talk about, which as far as I'm concerned is their good right and which they do not have to disclose. It's not as if they are in the employ of the companies and regardless, Chuck volunteered that information.
See also: every other thread about listed companies.
If HN required disclosure of positions in companies being discussed I'm sure they would add it to the rules of conduct. I see no such requirement. And any disclosure is voluntary, gracious and yet could still not be true, so you still can't base any decisions on it.
>How do you know the other commentors in this thread don't have a position in Tesla?
I don't.
>merely pointed out that some forum commenters may have positions in the companies they talk about, which as far as I'm concerned is their good right and which they do not have to disclose.
Agreed and agreed.
>If HN required disclosure of positions in companies being discussed I'm sure they would add it to the rules of conduct. I see no such requirement.
I never said HN required it. Our difference of opinion is in the difference between is and ought. Posters don't have to disclose but they ought to, why else would Chuck have done it in this thread?
> why else would Chuck have done it in this thread?
Because he's a decent human being. But that doesn't mean that people that do not disclose their positions are not decent human beings. And that's where we really differ, Chuck went over and beyond the call of duty here, it would be a mistake to assume that others in the same position would do the same because you feel they should. They don't and they probably won't.
Holding HN to some kind of imaginary standard when it comes to discussing public companies is both unproductive and likely will not illuminate but will merely give the illusion that if someone does not disclose their position that they don't have any. After all, who will verify what anybody writes?
full disclosure: I hold about 2 billion worth of Tesla stock...
>it would be a mistake to assume that others in the same position would do the same because you feel they should. They don't and they probably won't.
I don't assume that.
>people that do not disclose their positions are not decent human beings.
Decent human beings is a bit broad, but I do think they're engaging in an unethical action, yes.
>Holding HN to some kind of imaginary standard when it comes to discussing public companies is both unproductive and likely will not illuminate but will merely give the illusion that if someone does not disclose their position that they don't have any. After all, who will verify what anybody writes?
I don't expect to illuminate it and I don't think the community would fall for the illusion you think that it would any more than it already does. Perhaps the root disagreement comes down to doing what you can when you can even if the effect is only a small one, which is kind of what I'm doing here.
>full disclosure: I hold about 2 billion worth of Tesla stock...
I don't know whether you do or not (EDIT: do or do not disclose that is, for clarification) but I think if you post about Tesla without disclosing that holding, that's unethical. Whether it's against the rules or not.
> I don't know whether you do or not (EDIT: do or do not disclose that is, for clarification) but I think if you post about Tesla without disclosing that holding, that's unethical.
Why do you think that?
Disclosing whether or not someone holds a position in a stock they are discussing is unethical in a professional setting, but this is not a professional setting.
Disclosure is a courtesy, not an obligation, and might not be truthful whether positive or negative and therefore should not be assigned any value.
A belief that people should be courteous? Especially if that someone is coming to a place like this and speaking as if they're giving an honest unbiased opinion when in reality they have an ulterior motive.
>Disclosing whether or not someone holds a position in a stock they are discussing is unethical in a professional setting, but this is not a professional setting.
Maybe you could tell me why you believe it's unethical in a professional setting and what the difference is in a more personal setting like this forum which makes it not unethical anymore.
1 and 2 aren't ethical reasons and 3 applies just as much in a professional setting. I'm asking you to engage on an ethical level. Why is it unethical to not disclose your holdings in a professional setting?
ChuckMcM's comment was the top in this thread when I commented on it, and so was his comment in the Li-ion battery thread for a while. Then simonsarris is at the top of both of these threads:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14919074
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14914310
At least those were declared but really Hacker News can be better than that. I'm sure the bitcoin threads are even worse with conflicts of interest, but if I saw someone doing what ChuckMcM did in those threads I'd call it out there as well.