So if I like apples more than oranges, I write a blog post saying I like apples and won't eat oranges, and I also have a business selling apples...it's a conflict of interest?
If a company sells apples and they start pushing social media campaigns about why oranges are bad and they think you should be buying apples instead, then that’s a conflict of interest.
I think some people are missing the conflict of interest because the author blurs the lines between his personal opinion and his business. He turned his personal brand into his business and uses his name as his brand.
EDIT: I think people are missing the meaning of "conflict of interest". Having a conflict of interest doesn't mean something is wrong. You can be right and have a conflict of interest.
The issue is that conflicts of interest exist whenever someone's paycheck depends on an opinion being true. If someone on Twitter was alternating between trying to sell you vitamin supplements and then posting articles about why those vitamin supplements are good for you, HN would have no problem with pointing out the conflict of interest and taking it into consideration in the context of evaluating the claims.
If someone's entire job and personal brand are built around selling courses for particular stacks, that's important context to bring up when they start writing about why other technologies are bad. Agree or disagree with the conclusion, but you have to acknowledge that the writings should be read with the conflict of interest taken into account.
We're missing the "conflict of interest" because you are abusing the meaning of the term.
What you describe is simply a bias.
Conflict of interest would be if I take money from parties A and B. Party A pays me to give a professional opinion about which nutritional supplement to take, which frontend javascript framework to use, etc. Party B pays me to endorse their special Snake Oil Pills and Ointment or React or something else. I take Party B's money and make those endorsements to Party A without their knowledge and without any actual consideration of what is truly best for Party A. There is a conflict of my interests in Parties A and B.
Your definition is excessively broad and could be used to suggest, e.g., that Nike has a conflict of interest because it is their opinion that you should purchase their shoes.
> e.g., that Nike has a conflict of interest because it is their opinion that you should purchase their shoes.
It's even worse: that Nike has a conflict of interest because they think that wearing shoes while running is good, even though it would be extremely weird if a running shoe company thought that running with shoes is bad.
Remove the business from the equation and the opinion is fine — it's the existence of a business that aligns with the opinion that creates the conflict! Galaxy brain definition.
> EDIT: I think people are missing the meaning of "conflict of interest". Having a conflict of interest doesn't mean something is wrong. You can be right and have a conflict of interest.
He has motivations that make him not impartial, but that's not usually termed a "conflict of interest."
You're just using the term strangely. Usually the phrase "conflict of interest" implies the person has some sort of official commitment / obligation / duty to another party that is put in jeopardy because of another conflicting interest.
But this is just some guy selling stuff. He hasn't made any official commitments; he doesn't have any official duty or obligation to remain impartial.
By your definition, anyone selling anything has a conflict of interest because they want money from their customers, which may be against the customers' best interests.
> If a company sells apples and they start pushing social media campaigns about why oranges are bad and they think you should be buying apples instead, then that’s a conflict of interest.
Pretty sure that's just marketing.
A lot of product pages will spell out features they have and list competitors that don't have those features.
> I think some people are missing the conflict of interest because the author blurs the lines between his personal opinion and his business.
No, what's going on is that you don't understand what "conflict of interest" refers to.
Different people having different interests, as when the apple company says you should buy apples even though you prefer oranges, is just a regular conflict. A conflict of interest is when one person has two different interests. The apple company isn't experiencing a conflict in your example.
