[Sigia-l] Corporate blogs, again

[Listera]

"anu gupta" wrote:

> Did you see Groove's weblog policy for employees ?

Yes I have when it was first published. It's very well written, but the part
that bothers me is this:

"The views expressed on this website/weblog are mine alone and do not
necessarily reflect the views of my employer."

That's a common disclaimer, which, to me and to a lawyer, can easily mean
that the views expressed *may* "reflect the views of my employer." That's
the key that opens up the Pandora's box of legal entanglement. As a reader
I'm by definition put into the untenable position of deciphering what may or
may not (necessarily) be the employer's view.

I expect law suits based on this confusion in the not-too-distant future.

>> Shouldn't blogs be just personal?
> What's personal ?

Good question. A corporation has all sorts of legal and fiduciary
responsibilities that you as an employee or a person do not have.

By the same token, these "personal" blogs can say things that a corporation
can't legally or strategically utter.

To put it bluntly, Microsoft has been caught multiple times in planting
contrived letters to the editors of newspapers all around the country in a
concerted PR campaign during the DoJ trial. I have zero doubt in my mind
that MS can and will use FUD any way it can to its strategic advantage. How
exactly can an average reader know that the "personal" blog by one of MS
evangelists is not taking him for a ride in a subtle way? The blogsphere may
or may not sniff it out, but it may be too late.

I am personally vehemently against bloggers commenting at all on their
employer's business.

----
Ziya

If you take a middle-of-the-road position,
you risk getting hit by traffic from both directions.