0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:57 am UTC

Kyrn wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:
yoni45 wrote:allowing public posting of

I suppose I'll just have to pull a gun on people who point a camera at me at parties then.

Technically, the correct response is NOT to go out in public parties, and to sue the heck out of anyone who took your picture in private ones.

Or tweets about being at a party with me. Or out drinking ("I'm at [bar] (w/ @netcrusher88 and 3 others)" via 4square).
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:57 am UTC

Make sure you also don't ever accept an acting gig that involves a party scene.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:12 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Make sure you also don't ever accept an acting gig that involves a party scene.


Um, yes. You definitely *should* reconsider being in movies that you have reason to believe could hamper future relationships. If you're limited to working for places that would judge you on the basis of being in a movie with a party scene, then you have much bigger issues with your employability.

netcrusher88 wrote:I suppose I'll just have to pull a gun on people who point a camera at me at parties then.


Or just not be a camera whore. If some odd picture gets tagged, then you untag yourself if you don't want it directly representing you, which will get rid of any link between you and the picture directly. If the picture is *so* problematic that you don't even want the off chance that someone could incidentally stumble upon it, then you appeal to the person to remove it, or to Facebook if necessary.

Either way, all this is your responsibility. By attending a venue that has cameras, you take on the risks of what that could do to your reputation.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
nyeguy
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:59 pm UTC

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby nyeguy » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:35 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:Either way, all this is your responsibility. By attending a venue that has cameras, you take on the risks of what that could do to your reputation.

Good thing nobody has cameras in their cell phones. Oh wait... Well, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid any place with a cell phone in it, right?
Image

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:36 pm UTC

Cool, so it's pretty much proven that we actually DON'T have all that much control over what information about us makes to the Internet.

Anyone care to make an argument that DOESN'T assume 100% control is even remotely feasible?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

nyeguy wrote:
yoni45 wrote:Either way, all this is your responsibility. By attending a venue that has cameras, you take on the risks of what that could do to your reputation.

Good thing nobody has cameras in their cell phones. Oh wait... Well, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid any place with a cell phone in it, right?


Perhaps, perhaps not. This doesn't change the fact that by attending a venue with cameras (whether cell phone or not), you undertake the risks that such an event entails.

Princess Marzipan wrote:Anyone care to make an argument that DOESN'T assume 100% control is even remotely feasible?


Your own advice, once again: try reading. Noone claimed that 100% control of *anything* is possible.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:03 pm UTC

++$_ wrote:There is a counterargument that I don't think has really been addressed, which is to say that Facebook is so essential to modern life that treating its use as a waiver any kind of right is unconscionable. I don't agree, but this is possibly because I don't use Facebook. So I'll add the caveat to my argument that maybe I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about when I say that Facebook is not essential.


Facebook, is most definitely not essential to modern life. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that it is largely responsible for the erosion of privacy rights due to people's massive idiocy.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:06 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:Your own advice, once again: try reading. Noone claimed that 100% control of *anything* is possible.
yoni45 wrote:Either way, all this is your responsibility. By attending a venue that has cameras, you take on the risks of what that could do to your reputation.
You frequently seem blissfully unaware of the full ramifications of some of your statements.

See, if "all this is your responsibility", then either you're assuming 100% is possible, or you simply don't give a shit that some of the information businesses use to make hiring decisions is entirely unreliable (because without 100% coverage of one's information spread, some of that information is coming from people that aren't you).

In any case, feel free to clarify your position more deeply than "I never said that."
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:13 pm UTC

PM wrote:
yoni45 wrote:This doesn't change the fact that you (and gmal) did make that argument at some point in time.
...I still never made that argument.


Yes, you did: "Except AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, that information is so devoid of context, contrast, or veracity that it basically IS irrelevant."

Gmal said it outright.


PM wrote:
yoni45 wrote:No one claimed (or assumed) that all publicly available information is appropriate for use by an employer. As per your advice? Learn to read.
Ahem:
yoni45 wrote:By using social networking sites in certain ways, you choose to release that information to the public, at which point it's available to anyone. Anyone. Not anyone you want to see the information, but anyone. That is a conscious choice that you make.
This seems to be an argument that if it's public knowledge, anyone can use it, whatever it is, because it's public.


Once again: read. The fact that information becomes available to anyone in no way translates to any of that information being fair game.

PM wrote:
yoni45 wrote:No, it doesn't. Control regarding dissemination of your personal information is your responsibility, no one else's. The state shouldn't need to legislate laws because you're too incompetent to keep yourself from publicly posting, or allowing public posting of, information about yourself that you don't *actually* want released.
It's been stated several times, EVEN BY YOU, that you can't control all dissemination of your personal information.


Yes, that doesn't change the fact that 'Control regarding dissemination of your personal information is your responsibility, no one else's.'
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:20 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:Once again: read. The fact that information becomes available to anyone in no way translates to any of that information being fair game.
Ah, we finally agree on something.

yoni45 wrote:Yes, that doesn't change the fact that 'Control regarding dissemination of your personal information is your responsibility, no one else's.'
If one cannot exert complete control over this, how can you say it is one's responsibility? Are you okay with society assigning responsibilities that individuals literally cannot live up to?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:26 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:See, if "all this is your responsibility", then either you're assuming 100% is possible, or you simply don't give a shit that some of the information businesses use to make hiring decisions is entirely unreliable (because without 100% coverage of one's information spread, some of that information is coming from people that aren't you).


Some of the information is always entirely unreliable; from your CV, to your references, to your dress, to your facebook data, to what your ex secretly told the hiring manager because she knew you really wanted that job.

It's upto the employer to establish what is or isn't reliable.

None of this changes the fact that it's your responsibility to maintain your public image, and noone else's.

PM wrote:If one cannot exert complete control over this, how can you say it is one's responsibility? Are you okay with society assigning responsibilities that individuals literally cannot live up to


Of course -- that's standard fare, given that you never have 100% control of anything. It's your responsibility to avoid getting hit by lightning, regardless of whether you can exert complete control over it.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:53 pm UTC

Your CV and resume are backed up by how you do during actual interviews. It should quickly become apparent whether or not you're blatantly lying. As to references, again, that information is stacked against what you've provided. All of the "stuff" so far is basically proof that you can do the job. As for dress, whose dress for work ISN'T "unreliable", in that they typically dress otherwise? It doesn't matter whether you usually wear a t-shirt and jeans or a full tuxedo - neither is appropriate for most jobs, so you don't dress that way. Since the only way you're dressing at work is...y'know, whatever is required...what can it POSSIBLY matter what you wear before or after?

And "things you ex secretly told the hiring manager" DEFINITELY falls under information that should be excluded from hiring decisions.

As social networking evolves more and more, we're only going to have less and less control over who hears what we say. The solution to avoid potential problems is, as you see it, for individuals to exert greater and more effective control over what information is released. But the only real way to increase control is decrease the amount. And that really isn't feasible. You're basically saying that it's okay for people to stop using these services for fear of future employment problems. And you see that as LESS STIFLING to society than legislation that tells businesses "This is the information you can use to make hiring decisions. If you need different information, make a case for why, and we'll allow you to ask your applicants for it." I'm not sure you're looking too far into the future, either. In twenty years, there'll be college graduates who've had Facebook pages for longer than they've been alive, filled with status updates from infant to toddler to teen to college grad. What is an employer going to find in there that gives any more necessary information than could be gleaned from an interview? You keep saying things like dress habits, party habits, social habits, proclivity for swearing - basically, all the things people do differently outside work. Which begs the obvious question, how can it possibly be relevant? How you can say a business has a right to look at my party photos from last weekend and decide FROM THAT that I'm not professional enough to behave for eight hours a day? You seriously must lead quite a privileged life, because I can't imagine these arguments coming from someone who's EVER gotten the short end of the stick from society.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:23 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:Your CV and resume are backed up by how you do during actual interviews.


So is your fb profile.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
nyeguy
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:59 pm UTC

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby nyeguy » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:26 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
nyeguy wrote:
yoni45 wrote:Either way, all this is your responsibility. By attending a venue that has cameras, you take on the risks of what that could do to your reputation.

Good thing nobody has cameras in their cell phones. Oh wait... Well, it shouldn't be too hard to avoid any place with a cell phone in it, right?


Perhaps, perhaps not. This doesn't change the fact that by attending a venue with cameras (whether cell phone or not), you undertake the risks that such an event entails.

So basically what you are saying is anytime you do anything with anyone outside your own home, you are taking risks that could potentially jeopardize your future employment. Because really, the only way to completely avoid a venue without camera phones is to never leave your home. This isn't a risk that you should have to take to socialize. Many responsible people enjoy going to bars, and behaving a little crazy.
Image

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Malice » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:35 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:Your CV and resume are backed up by how you do during actual interviews.


So is your fb profile.


The difference is that I have control over my resume, and therefore if I don't get an interview, it was my fault and mine alone.

I don't have control over my internet presence*, not completely, and therefore if I never get a chance to explain the sugar-snorting picture of me that my friend uploaded without my permission, because the HR person sees that and says, "We decline to interview in favor of this guy who doesn't look like a coke-head on the internet", then that failure to get an interview is not mine alone.

*The separate argument is that I should not be required to control my internet presence in order to meet the unreasonable standards of potential employers.
Image

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:43 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:Your CV and resume are backed up by how you do during actual interviews.


So is your fb profile.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I currently post all kind of random crap on my FB (and use lists to hide stuff from people I don't want to easily find out), but I'm not going to talk about irrelevant topics during an interview. Different content for different audiences applies here.
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:41 am UTC

Malice wrote:The difference is that I have control over my resume, and therefore if I don't get an interview, it was my fault and mine alone.

I don't have control over my internet presence*, not completely, and therefore if I never get a chance to explain the sugar-snorting picture of me that my friend uploaded without my permission, because the HR person sees that and says, "We decline to interview in favor of this guy who doesn't look like a coke-head on the internet", then that failure to get an interview is not mine alone.


Then you pursue action against the party whose fault it happens to be.

Either way, as noted above, maintaining your image remains your responsibility and yours alone. If by some dumb fortune you happen to get screwed by the actions of a 3rd party, that's unfortunate. If some random person spills coffee all over your shirt right as you were about to walk into the interview, you don't get to tell the interviewer that he's not allowed to look at your shirt.

Malice wrote:*The separate argument is that I should not be required to control my internet presence in order to meet the unreasonable standards of potential employers.


You're not. They're just also not required to hire you.


cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:
yoni45 wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:Your CV and resume are backed up by how you do during actual interviews.


So is your fb profile.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I currently post all kind of random crap on my FB (and use lists to hide stuff from people I don't want to easily find out), but I'm not going to talk about irrelevant topics during an interview. Different content for different audiences applies here.


You will if the interviewer is interested enough in it to bring it up. They might overlook it. They might choose to let your body language and demeanor speak for itself. They might not mention it but judge you anyway. The same applies to information acquired by any other means.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Malice » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:23 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Malice wrote:*The separate argument is that I should not be required to control my internet presence in order to meet the unreasonable standards of potential employers.


You're not. They're just also not required to hire you.


We have absolutely nothing to discuss, do we? I posit a dystopian future in which nobody is allowed to have a personal life and the chance of a job at the same time, and your argument is not "that's outlandish" or "I would enjoy that" but "them's the breaks". You seem to be saying, "Because this would help corporations a little bit, it doesn't matter how much it hurts actual people." That's an absurd position to take. It's inhuman.

Please, let me know if I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying.
Image

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby phillipsjk » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:47 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Malice wrote:The difference is that I have control over my resume, and therefore if I don't get an interview, it was my fault and mine alone.

I don't have control over my internet presence*, not completely, and therefore if I never get a chance to explain the sugar-snorting picture of me that my friend uploaded without my permission, because the HR person sees that and says, "We decline to interview in favor of this guy who doesn't look like a coke-head on the internet", then that failure to get an interview is not mine alone.


Then you pursue action against the party whose fault it happens to be.

Either way, as noted above, maintaining your image remains your responsibility and yours alone. If by some dumb fortune you happen to get screwed by the actions of a 3rd party, that's unfortunate. If some random person spills coffee all over your shirt right as you were about to walk into the interview, you don't get to tell the interviewer that he's not allowed to look at your shirt.


The problem is that this is all speculation. Some people commenting in this thread seem to be assuming the no employer will be stupid enough to make hiring decisions based on the wrong, or lack of Facebook profile. The problem is, I rarely get rejection letters. And when I do, they are vague form letters thanking me for my application. Potential applicants will never be told "you didn't get an interview because we didn't like your Facebook profile."

I suppose there is an argument to be made that I don't want to work for a company with stupid hiring policies. How do I know those policies are reflective of the corporate culture, and not just some misguided manager in HR?

Yoni, are you suggesting I should sue every time an embarrassing picture of me appears on the Internet? On what grounds? Defamation only applies if the statements aren't true.
Did you get the number on that truck?

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Kyrn » Fri Aug 06, 2010 7:47 am UTC

phillipsjk wrote:The problem is that this is all speculation. Some people commenting in this thread seem to be assuming the no employer will be stupid enough to make hiring decisions based on the wrong, or lack of Facebook profile. The problem is, I rarely get rejection letters. And when I do, they are vague form letters thanking me for my application. Potential applicants will never be told "you didn't get an interview because we didn't like your Facebook profile."

This is why I asked for transparency in the hiring process. Regardless of which side you take, it is still required to remove bias. Right now, as you said, no one has any idea what factors are used to decide on who gets hired, whether it's because you're related to the boss, you actually have a good resume, or they picked a number out of a box.
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:23 am UTC

I'm honestly fine with NOT requiring employers to inform every potential hire why they didn't get hired.

However, one should be allowed COMPLETE control over what an employer has access to. (Because honestly, you have COMPLETE control over what you do while at work. Everyone has traits that employers might see as negative, but if you can overcome or eliminate those traits long enough for an interview and then long enough to work every day, then they're irrelevant, since they NEVER get introduced into the workplace.)
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:28 am UTC

Hell, the law says former employers can only be contacted to verify you worked there. They can neither be asked nor volunteer information on your performance unless you explicitly request it, which generally takes the form of a letter of recommendation or summat. Information directly relevant to your job (and under the same logic of credit being predictive of reliability on that mark, predictive of performance) is restricted.

But no, it's cool if photos you had no reasonable way of knowing were online - or, public - prevent you from getting a job.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:40 pm UTC

Malice wrote:We have absolutely nothing to discuss, do we? I posit a dystopian future in which nobody is allowed to have a personal life and the chance of a job at the same time, and your argument is not "that's outlandish" or "I would enjoy that" but "them's the breaks". You seem to be saying, "Because this would help corporations a little bit, it doesn't matter how much it hurts actual people." That's an absurd position to take. It's inhuman.

Please, let me know if I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying.


Here's a parallel to my position:

You come up with an argument that says "So, I'm thinking, what if I wake up one day and every single person on the face of the planet decided they should collectively try to make me go insane by refusing to speak to me. This is absolutely possible, and something needs to be done about this. Clearly, there needs to be a law forcing people to speak to me."

My position, thus far, has been that if it that happened to be the case, then that would really suck for you. But, that's not a reason to enact such a law, as people have a right not to speak to you.

I guess I should add in the rest of the parallel then: the situation you propose is indeed highly unlikely. Employers are highly unlikely to browse random people's photo albums on the off chance that your face (that they will somehow recognize) will show up in them. There's no real substantive reason for a business to throw your application in the garbage because there happened to be this one picture of you with a beer bottle in hand. Believe it or not, they actually know this as well as you do. In fact, given that they're entire career is based on hiring people, they probably know this much better than you do. If it gets to the point that your facebook profile shuts down every other job opportunity? Chances are it's not just some one random photo taken in 2002 with which you're not associated that's causing it; it's more probably the fact that every other status update you had said something like "Fuckin' bitch looked at me funny; won't be walking for awhile".

And if some one business is stupid enough to shut you out on the basis of one random uncontextual photo? Well, that's unfortunate, but hardly basis to ban use of facebook.

phillipsjk wrote:Yoni, are you suggesting I should sue every time an embarrassing picture of me appears on the Internet? On what grounds? Defamation only applies if the statements aren't true.


If you honestly believe that such a picture can damage your reputation in such a way as to make you unemployable? Yeah, you probably should (privacy violations, depending on the circumstances?). And if you have no grounds for suit, then if a picture is so bad as to damage your reputation in such a way as to make you unemployable, then you probably shouldn't have put yourself into a position in which such a picture could compromise you.


Princess Marzipan wrote:However, one should be allowed COMPLETE control over what an employer has access to. (Because honestly, you have COMPLETE control over what you do while at work. Everyone has traits that employers might see as negative, but if you can overcome or eliminate those traits long enough for an interview and then long enough to work every day, then they're irrelevant, since they NEVER get introduced into the workplace.)


Except the fact that you're able to control your actions is at best a minute part of the hiring decision, nor have you actually established that you're able to overcome or eliminate said negative traits long enough for an entire work day (or career), or that you can better eliminate them than other candidates.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Malice » Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:22 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Malice wrote:We have absolutely nothing to discuss, do we? I posit a dystopian future in which nobody is allowed to have a personal life and the chance of a job at the same time, and your argument is not "that's outlandish" or "I would enjoy that" but "them's the breaks". You seem to be saying, "Because this would help corporations a little bit, it doesn't matter how much it hurts actual people." That's an absurd position to take. It's inhuman.

Please, let me know if I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying.


Here's a parallel to my position:

You come up with an argument that says "So, I'm thinking, what if I wake up one day and every single person on the face of the planet decided they should collectively try to make me go insane by refusing to speak to me. This is absolutely possible, and something needs to be done about this. Clearly, there needs to be a law forcing people to speak to me."

My position, thus far, has been that if it that happened to be the case, then that would really suck for you. But, that's not a reason to enact such a law, as people have a right not to speak to you.


But they don't. At least not an unlimited right. Businesses have the discretion to hire whomever they like, until it comes out that all they hire are white men. In other words, the basis for their decision is limited; and the information they can obtain to use as a basis is therefore limited. That's why they can't talk to your former employers without your permission, that's why they can't ask you straight out what your religion is, etc. All I'm suggesting is that this be another set of information they can't use. It's not radically different from the limitations they have now.

I guess I should add in the rest of the parallel then: the situation you propose is indeed highly unlikely. Employers are highly unlikely to browse random people's photo albums on the off chance that your face (that they will somehow recognize) will show up in them.


I'm making the assumption that the ability to find out information about people will only increase. Right now it may be checking somebody's Facebook, browsing through a few of their friends, and doing a Google search (which is bad enough). I think betting against the Internet getting more open and easier to search is a fool's wager. This is not even acknowledging that somebody out there is going to start coming out with search tools just for businesses, if they haven't already.

There's no real substantive reason for a business to throw your application in the garbage because there happened to be this one picture of you with a beer bottle in hand. Believe it or not, they actually know this as well as you do. In fact, given that they're entire career is based on hiring people, they probably know this much better than you do. If it gets to the point that your facebook profile shuts down every other job opportunity? Chances are it's not just some one random photo taken in 2002 with which you're not associated that's causing it; it's more probably the fact that every other status update you had said something like "Fuckin' bitch looked at me funny; won't be walking for awhile".


First off, you're stacking the deck by making it about beating women. It could certainly be a lot of other things--your sexual orientation, your political opinions, your love of tentacle porn or Lord of the Rings fan-fiction, or just the fact that you use your FB profile for nothing but finding and talking about weekend parties. The point is that all or any of these things may tip the scales between you and Joe Competition, whose profile says nothing but "I enjoy managing my action items and utilizing the award-winning sales experience I earned in nine record breaking years at my last job." And all of those things, which may be the reason not to ask for an interview or not to hire me, are things that are none of their fucking business. Up to and including violence against women. Whatever I do outside of work has zero bearing on what I will do during work hours, and can only be used to tip the scales unfairly in one direction or another.

And there will be people who don't realize that; and there will be people with unconscious biases; and there will be people with conscious biases. And it doesn't matter if it's not all of them, because it may very well be most of them, particularly in certain circumstances. (One of my friends is a transsexual liberal in Texas, and he has a hard enough time trying to find a job already.) If it takes 100 resumes to get 1 interview, and 30 of them get thrown out because you said "The GOP is a bunch of racists" and 20 of them get thrown out because your friend has pictures up of that one time you got really drunk and threw up in the pool, and 10 of them get thrown out because you're a cat person and they're dog people, well, you're twice as fucked, aren't you?

phillipsjk wrote:Yoni, are you suggesting I should sue every time an embarrassing picture of me appears on the Internet? On what grounds? Defamation only applies if the statements aren't true.


If you honestly believe that such a picture can damage your reputation in such a way as to make you unemployable? Yeah, you probably should (privacy violations, depending on the circumstances?). And if you have no grounds for suit, then if a picture is so bad as to damage your reputation in such a way as to make you unemployable, then you probably shouldn't have put yourself into a position in which such a picture could compromise you.


"Man, you probably shouldn't have done that. ...welp, good luck being homeless for the rest of your life." Jokes aside, you are arguing for a society where it is impossible to get past your mistakes, because they're there indelibly on the internet. You're arguing for a society where it's impossible to get a second chance.

Princess Marzipan wrote:However, one should be allowed COMPLETE control over what an employer has access to. (Because honestly, you have COMPLETE control over what you do while at work. Everyone has traits that employers might see as negative, but if you can overcome or eliminate those traits long enough for an interview and then long enough to work every day, then they're irrelevant, since they NEVER get introduced into the workplace.)


Except the fact that you're able to control your actions is at best a minute part of the hiring decision, nor have you actually established that you're able to overcome or eliminate said negative traits long enough for an entire work day (or career), or that you can better eliminate them than other candidates.


But Facebook is not going to help them determine that.
Image

User avatar
Crius
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Crius » Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

I wouldn't say that information on Facebook is entirely useless to employers. Some scenario's that I could think of:
- Someone bragging about stealing from or otherwise defrauding a previous employer.
- Someone who is liable to talk about their employer's private details online.
- False information on the resume or given during the interview.
- Racism, sexism, or other discriminatory behavior.
- Drug habits or other illegal behavior.

Malice wrote:But they don't. At least not an unlimited right. Businesses have the discretion to hire whomever they like, until it comes out that all they hire are white men. In other words, the basis for their decision is limited; and the information they can obtain to use as a basis is therefore limited. That's why they can't talk to your former employers without your permission, that's why they can't ask you straight out what your religion is, etc. All I'm suggesting is that this be another set of information they can't use. It's not radically different from the limitations they have now.


People implicitly have that right until it's explicitly taken away from the government. Yes, the government can take away that right, but that doesn't mean they should.

What set of information is being proposed to be excluded here? Any public information? It seems that you're turning an exclusive list (i.e., you can't use these criteria) into an inclusive list (i.e., you only can use these criteria). That's a pretty drastic change to propose based pretty much only on what-if scenarios.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:23 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
yoni45 wrote:Except the fact that you're able to control your actions is at best a minute part of the hiring decision, nor have you actually established that you're able to overcome or eliminate said negative traits long enough for an entire work day (or career), or that you can better eliminate them than other candidates.
But Facebook is not going to help them determine that.
Yeah, and a lot of companies are fully aware of this and have a probationary period for just that reason. You're not a full employee for 90 days or some such. Sometimes this means fewer benefits for that time, but usually it's just "Look, we THINK you can swing this. But we can't know 'til you try. If you can't do it, you're out."

And Malice, you brought up another great point - someone whose only use for Facebook is a social party organizer. Because that's pretty all I use it for, actually. I don't really do things with it, but some people use Facebook invites as like The Official Thing or whatever. I don't even go to lots of parties, but that's all you really see about me on Facebook.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:08 am UTC

Malice wrote:But they don't. At least not an unlimited right. Businesses have the discretion to hire whomever they like, until it comes out that all they hire are white men.


We're not talking about an 'unlimited' right, we're talking about the discretion to hire whomever you like, outside certain protected criteria. We've been doing that for awhile.

Malice wrote:All I'm suggesting is that this be another set of information they can't use. It's not radically different from the limitations they have now.


Yes, it is. You're not blocking off a criterion, you're blocking off an entire source of publicly available information. It's the difference between not allowing gender-bias in hiring, and not allowing you to look at the applicant.

Malice wrote:I'm making the assumption that the ability to find out information about people will only increase. Right now it may be checking somebody's Facebook, browsing through a few of their friends, and doing a Google search (which is bad enough). I think betting against the Internet getting more open and easier to search is a fool's wager. This is not even acknowledging that somebody out there is going to start coming out with search tools just for businesses, if they haven't already.


Except you still failed to show that employers will collectively use this information, even if available, in a counter-productive manner.

The internet's increasing capabilities also make it more possible for the whole world to coordinate a focused campaign on not ever talking to you. That doesn't mean we should be blocking off the internet any time soon.

Malice wrote:First off, you're stacking the deck by making it about beating women. It could certainly be a lot of other things--your sexual orientation, your political opinions, your love of tentacle porn or Lord of the Rings fan-fiction, or just the fact that you use your FB profile for nothing but finding and talking about weekend parties. The point is that all or any of these things may tip the scales between you and Joe Competition, whose profile says nothing but "I enjoy managing my action items and utilizing the award-winning sales experience I earned in nine record breaking years at my last job." And all of those things, which may be the reason not to ask for an interview or not to hire me, are things that are none of their fucking business. Up to and including violence against women.


Um, yeah. They're the ones making an investment in you? That makes it their business. If there is reason to believe you're prone to beating women, you become a liability for that business.

Again, you've failed to show that companies overall would collectively and instantaneously suddenly become too incompetent to be able to differentiate irrelevant from relevant data, just because they're using facebook.

Malice wrote:"Man, you probably shouldn't have done that. ...welp, good luck being homeless for the rest of your life." Jokes aside, you are arguing for a society where it is impossible to get past your mistakes, because they're there indelibly on the internet. You're arguing for a society where it's impossible to get a second chance.


It's possible to get a second chance -- it's just up to the employer to give it to you. If you did something *so* egregious that it makes you virtually unemployable, then really -- that's unfortunate but no one's fault but your own.

Malice wrote:But Facebook is not going to help them determine that.


You haven't shown that, and there's been plenty of instances cited to show that Facebook *could* aid in determining it. See example above of status updates regarding overly violent behavior being indicative of a potential liability for the company.

PM wrote:Yeah, and a lot of companies are fully aware of this and have a probationary period for just that reason. You're not a full employee for 90 days or some such. Sometimes this means fewer benefits for that time, but usually it's just "Look, we THINK you can swing this. But we can't know 'til you try. If you can't do it, you're out."


Ah yes, it's totally a great idea to invest what's over $10 000 in salary, the company's resources which would very possibly include another (likely more expensive) employee's time, and the loss of productivity, on absolutely nothing more than what a person provides you with to get himself hired.
Last edited by yoni45 on Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:12 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Malice » Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:11 am UTC

Crius wrote:I wouldn't say that information on Facebook is entirely useless to employers. Some scenario's that I could think of:
- Someone bragging about stealing from or otherwise defrauding a previous employer.
- Someone who is liable to talk about their employer's private details online.

Fair enough.

- False information on the resume or given during the interview.


Right, because people are more honest on the internet.

- Racism, sexism, or other discriminatory behavior.
- Drug habits or other illegal behavior.


Irrelevant. There's no reason to assume any of that will be brought into the workplace until it actually is. See earlier in the thread where drug testing had no effect on productivity--which says that people who previously used drugs recreationally did so outside of the workplace without affecting their job performance.

Question: would you be okay with your list of information being discovered via a company tapping into public security camera footage, or by hiring people to follow potential employees around?

What set of information is being proposed to be excluded here? Any public information? It seems that you're turning an exclusive list (i.e., you can't use these criteria) into an inclusive list (i.e., you only can use these criteria). That's a pretty drastic change to propose based pretty much only on what-if scenarios.


The list is currently "you can only look at things the interviewee freely gives you," such as the interview itself, blood/urine sample for drug test, resume, references, etc. If internet searches were allowed once the applicant gave permission, and as long as refusal of permission didn't automatically remove you from consideration, I would be fine with that.
Image

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:01 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:Ah yes, it's totally a great idea to invest what's over $10 000 in salary, the company's resources which would very possibly include another (likely more expensive) employee's time, and the loss of productivity, on absolutely nothing more than what a person provides you with to get himself hired.
This has been happening for CENTURIES. Businesses seem to do alright.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:17 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
yoni45 wrote:Ah yes, it's totally a great idea to invest what's over $10 000 in salary, the company's resources which would very possibly include another (likely more expensive) employee's time, and the loss of productivity, on absolutely nothing more than what a person provides you with to get himself hired.
This has been happening for CENTURIES. Businesses seem to do alright.


Appeal to history was fallacious the first time you tried it, and still is. The fact that it was done historically (mostly due to necessity) doesn't make it a good idea.

(Not to mention the fact that over 50% of businesses fail within the first 5 years.)
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:14 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:(Not to mention the fact that over 50% of businesses fail within the first 5 years.)
Find Waldo where in this plethora (five is totally a plethora; shut up) of presumably somewhat well-informed articles it is stated that business tend to fail because of hiring the wrong people, or because not enough information was available on potential hirees. Or find it anywhere else. I didn't bother going past page one of Google's results for "new business failure" - the effort seemed unnecessary.

http://www.businessknowhow.com/startup/ ... ailure.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/ne ... 990930.htm
http://cpa.utk.edu/pdffiles/adc24.pdf
http://www.smalltownmarketing.com/prevent.html
http://www.saching.com/Articles/Busines ... -1166.html

And I don't think you've adequately proven your claim that such additional information will even lead to greater business success. Stacked against the fact that business advice doesn't seem to suggest e-stalking your applicants, AND the fact that businesses have done fine for centuries without doing so, AND the fact that precedent exists for declaring some public information "out of bounds" for hiring purposes...

And appeal to history IS fallacious. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm not saying "No one did this before, so we shouldn't do it now." I'm saying "No one did this before, so it can't be necessary now." The unmistakable successes of well managed and well executed businesses in the past centuries is relevant empirical evidence which strongly indicates that public-but-personal information about applicants is not a prerequisite for success. The failure rate is also empirical evidence, BUT - with all the reasons we've seen in the links above for why businesses tend to fail, I think the onus is on you to prove that using public-but-personal information could generate greater success. (And keep in mind, MY overall argument doesn't depend on winning this specific point. YOURS does, though.)
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:22 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:And appeal to history IS fallacious. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm not saying "No one did this before, so we shouldn't do it now." I'm saying "No one did this before, so it can't be necessary now."


This is probably the fifth time you've argued against the exact same strawman now, and it's been pointed out to you numerous times already. I'd have stuck to the fallacious appeal to history.

No one is arguing that this is *necessary*.

(Nor does your 'plethora' of citations change the fact that the claim that 'businesses seem to do alright' is downright laughable)
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:42 pm UTC

For FUCK'S sake, it's like you're not even trying. You don't address ANY of the points of I bring up except to incorrectly label them as fallacious.

You are arguing that it's NECESSARY for us to allow businesses to use public-but-personal information. If you don't think it's necessary, why do you have a problem with disallowing it? You may not be arguing that it's necessary for businesses to USE this information, but if that's the case? Clarify your position and then address my arguments against it. Don't just fucking cry foul about a misinterpretation.

And how is it laughable that businesses seem to do alright? I mean, we're in a RECESSION and many businesses are still profiting. Seems alright to me. And AGAIN, at this point, the onus is on YOU to prove a correlation between better business success and increased information about applicants.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:14 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:For FUCK'S sake, it's like you're not even trying.


I barely have to. For example:

Princess Marzipan wrote:You are arguing that it's NECESSARY for us to allow businesses to use public-but-personal information.


No, I'm not. Noone here is. Moreover, that's been pointed out *several* times already.

Princess Marzipan wrote:If you don't think it's necessary, why do you have a problem with disallowing it?


Because it doesn't have to be necessary for your proposal to be a severe restriction on the rights and abilities of businesses.

Princess Marzipan wrote:And how is it laughable that businesses seem to do alright?


By virtue of the fact that over 50% of them fail in the first five years.

And no, the burden of proof is not on me to show that more hiring data wouldn't help them. You're the one proposing that we severely restrict the rights and abilities of businesses, so the burden of proof is 100% on you to show how a status update of "Fired again for spitting on a customer; stupid asshole had it coming by asking me too many questions" wouldn't help an employer in their hiring decision.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:43 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:And no, the burden of proof is not on me to show that more hiring data wouldn't help them.
Yes, it is. Did you click any of those links? They outline major reasons that businesses fail - reasons like inadequate financing, poor management, poor planning, plain old unprofitability, and similar issues. And while skimming them again just now, one of them notes a neat statistic: 88.7% of small business failures are due to management mistakes. (Page 2 of the pdf link.)

I've shown that the reason a business fails is very likely NOT due to insufficient information regarding applicants. This disproves the premise of your argument. Now you have to defend it. YOU have to show that any business ever actually HAS failed because of this. It's [citation needed] needed time, not cover your ears and yell LA LA LA LA LA time.

...Have you considered seeking a Republican nomination for the US Senate? ...Are you secretly James Mountain Inhofe?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby yoni45 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:00 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:I've shown that the reason a business fails is very likely NOT due to insufficient information regarding applicants. This disproves the premise of your argument.


Except that was never a premise of my argument. You're *really* not very good at this, are you?

Once more: You're the one proposing that we severely restrict the rights and abilities of businesses, so the burden of proof is 100% on you to show how a status update of "Fired again for spitting on a customer; stupid asshole had it coming by asking me too many questions" wouldn't help an employer in their hiring decision.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

Okay, that shit you do where I say a thing and you just contradict it?

Fill in the fucking blanks so that I have any idea what you're actually talking about, please.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Crius
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Crius » Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:13 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
- False information on the resume or given during the interview.


Right, because people are more honest on the internet.


There are some areas where a candidate may not be entirely honest in an interview, but be more open online. For example: circumstances of leaving the previous company. Being "asked to resign" and voluntarily leaving the company are two very different circumstances, though a candidate may likely make the former sound like the latter.

- Racism, sexism, or other discriminatory behavior.
- Drug habits or other illegal behavior.


Irrelevant. There's no reason to assume any of that will be brought into the workplace until it actually is. See earlier in the thread where drug testing had no effect on productivity--which says that people who previously used drugs recreationally did so outside of the workplace without affecting their job performance.


If you were presented with two similarly qualified candidates, but knew one was overtly racist outside of work, which would you choose? Or one had a criminal record? Odds are that it won't effect the workplace, but given two equally qualified candidates, an employer would want to pick the one that is less likely to have problems.

The other side of this issue is the company's public image. In some positions, your actions outside of work affect how the public percieves the company. For an extreme example, imagine if the recent tape of Mel Gibson was instead Steve Jobs - how do you think that would affect the public perception of Apple? How about it's market capitalization? Granted, most jobs it won't be very important - a cashier at WalMart will have little effect on the public image - but as you start looking at management positions, it starts to be an issue.

Question: would you be okay with your list of information being discovered via a company tapping into public security camera footage, or by hiring people to follow potential employees around?


Interesting questions. Public security footage? I don't see an issue with that - the information is already part of the public record. Hiring a private detective? That would bother me enough that I wouldn't want to work at a company that does that.

That's assuming that they're doing both of these legally. I don't support breaking and entering someone's home to help make a hiring decision (or at all, really).

What set of information is being proposed to be excluded here? Any public information? It seems that you're turning an exclusive list (i.e., you can't use these criteria) into an inclusive list (i.e., you only can use these criteria). That's a pretty drastic change to propose based pretty much only on what-if scenarios.


The list is currently "you can only look at things the interviewee freely gives you," such as the interview itself, blood/urine sample for drug test, resume, references, etc. If internet searches were allowed once the applicant gave permission, and as long as refusal of permission didn't automatically remove you from consideration, I would be fine with that.


Would you allow information that an employer obtains incidentally, like the candidate showing up in the news?

The one thing I haven't seen addressed is the justifications for why people think we need laws for this - it's mainly been musing about the worst case scenario. Someone unemployable because there's a picture with them holding a beer from the last 20 years? We'd be seeing 90% unemployment if that were true! I don't think we need to make drastic laws based on hypotheticals which are extremely unlikely in the first place. We should be making laws based on what actually causes problems.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Crius wrote:There are some areas where a candidate may not be entirely honest in an interview, but be more open online. For example: circumstances of leaving the previous company. Being "asked to resign" and voluntarily leaving the company are two very different circumstances, though a candidate may likely make the former sound like the latter.
So being asked to resign from any job, ever, should disqualify you from further employment, ever? Sometimes, shit happens at a job. Personalities clash, tensions build over a period of months or years, sometimes office politics flat out fucks someone over. There are a lot of reasons someone could end up being "asked to resign", too...as I know from experience, some of them are *bullshit.* AND, part of the reason it's "asked to resign" and not "fired" is that the company cutting ties realizes that you haven't fucked up enough that they want to give a black mark of a firing, so they just tell you to quit. It's their way of NOT fucking over your job search.

If you were presented with two similarly qualified candidates, but knew one was overtly racist outside of work, which would you choose? Or one had a criminal record? Odds are that it won't effect the workplace, but given two equally qualified candidates, an employer would want to pick the one that is less likely to have problems.
No one likes racists. So I'm not UPSET at that question. But I will say that if someone is capable of keeping their racism to themselves while on the job, then no, it is NOT fair to base an employment decision on their conduct outside of work. Now, what DOES upset me is your bullshit presumption that it's okay for a criminal record to make it really really really fucking hard for you to find work. The whole serving jail time thing? Part of that is that once you're realized, your debt to society has been repaid, and you're supposed to go out and rejoin it now. That's...that's really not possible if we're going to say that an employer can fairly take that information into account.

The other side of this issue is the company's public image. In some positions, your actions outside of work affect how the public percieves the company. For an extreme example, imagine if the recent tape of Mel Gibson was instead Steve Jobs - how do you think that would affect the public perception of Apple? How about it's market capitalization? Granted, most jobs it won't be very important - a cashier at WalMart will have little effect on the public image - but as you start looking at management positions, it starts to be an issue.
Yeah. Remember when I mentioned that high-profile public-facing jobs were a different beast entirely? This is what I'm fucking talking about. CEO isn't exactly a position you submit a resume for through Craigslist. It's honestly quite irrelevant to this discussion. (Any additional information required for higher level positions like this can be covered through my suggested caveat of "If you need more than the allowed information, let us know what and why and you will be able to ask candidates to volunteer it."

Public security footage? I don't see an issue with that - the information is already part of the public record. Hiring a private detective? That would bother me enough that I wouldn't want to work at a company that does that.

That's assuming that they're doing both of these legally. I don't support breaking and entering someone's home to help make a hiring decision (or at all, really).
So you're okay with companies doing the things there aren't laws against them doing.

You really don't see trawling SECURITY CAMERA FOOTAGE or HIRING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS as unethical enough to prevent it by law?


Would you allow information that an employer obtains incidentally, like the candidate showing up in the news?
Um. No.

The one thing I haven't seen addressed is the justifications for why people think we need laws for this - it's mainly been musing about the worst case scenario. Someone unemployable because there's a picture with them holding a beer from the last 20 years? We'd be seeing 90% unemployment if that were true! I don't think we need to make drastic laws based on hypotheticals which are extremely unlikely in the first place. We should be making laws based on what actually causes problems.
So because it's only a WORST CASE scenario, it's not worth legislation in order to prevent it?

And really, what is so drastic about saying "No trawling the webternets behind your applicants' backs."

The current "culture" of providing resumes, references, dressing for interviews...the entire system works in such a way that the applicant basically has FULL control over what an employer sees. Legislation like I'm suggesting is PERFECTLY in keeping with that general philosophy. There are LAWS against former employers badmouthing you when asked about your time with them. Those laws are there because someone at some point figured out that a society where businesses hire people who've been fired is better than a society where businesses only hire people that didn't get fired - or even a society where businesses were ALLOWED to only hire people that didn't get fired. Are you in favor of repealing any such legislation?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 0.1 Billion Facebookers made public

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Sat Aug 07, 2010 8:52 pm UTC

I don't think this is ever going to be too much of an issue and making checking a potential employee's public FB profile illegal will create problems of its own. As I've said before, there is an extremely low signal/noise ratio of career-related content on most social networking sites, so unless someone posts all their statuses drunk and has pictures about how that are "'bout da crack", I'm not really sure what the problem of looking at someone's public profile is.
However, employers should not require applicants to friend the hiring manager if they have their profile set to private to look at information that is not publicly accessible. Not only is that an intrusion of privacy, it is also useless. People may make their gender, race, and religion as obvious as possible to people on their "hiring managers" list so they can have grounds for a lawsuit if they don't get the job/an interview/a raise or they may use friend lists and/or fake profiles to create a "work-friendly" image and employers are back to square one for screening their applicants. If anything, the law needs to be changed so that past employers may choose to give a character/attendance reference/recommendation instead of simply noting the dates the employee worked
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sardia and 23 guests