Jump to content

Social Networking: Something Wicked This Way Comes?


Meteo Xavier
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are you really that dense? I think you misunderstood EVERYTHING I just said. And it seems you completely overlooked everything I said that specifically ties my explanation in with businesses and why they have a right to be concerned about these things.

Did you miss the big post I made replying to you and Audix? The one before Zircon's? This one? I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but you quoted the one post where I was being sarcastic like it was the only reply I made in the thread.

Just because you're off the clock does not mean you don't still represent the company in some way. I didn't ask you if this was fair, or if you like it, I'm telling you that's how it works.

That's fine. I'm not telling you that it's not how it works, I'm saying that it's not fair and I don't like it. That is the point of the thread, isn't it? The results of social networks and what we think of them?

I think what you're not understanding is that for many, MANY jobs, you ARE expected to act with professional decorum at all times. Not literally wearing a suit and tie and never letting loose a bit, but not acting like a frat boy either. Is this really so hard to comprehend? As BGC pointed out, unprofessional activity reflects poorly on the employer, but moreover, it (again) shows a lack of maturity and judgment. These are qualities that, in the real world, real companies want. They don't want to settle for someone who acts like a dumbass when they're not at work.

If anyone who does dumb things with their friends on occasion is lacking in maturity and judgment, then there's no such thing as a mature person with good judgment on the planet. The only difference is that some people are better at hiding it than others.

Of course your previous occupations impact your future job prospects! What is it with people not wanting to take responsibility for their decisions here? :| You can't just do whatever you want and expect that people will look past it.

Explain to me what the relevance between Playboy and cheerleading is. If a person is a really good cheerleading coach who happened to work for Playboy in the past, does discovering that they worked for Playboy suddenly make them a less capable coach? Obviously no, it doesn't; nothing about them has changed, the only thing that's different is the way that you perceive them. They're still doing the exact same job that they did before, so how is it legitimate to fire them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course your previous occupations impact your future job prospects! What is it with people not wanting to take responsibility for their decisions here? :| You can't just do whatever you want and expect that people will look past it.

That's fine and dandy but when no one bothered you about it till some one complains about something entirely different I call bullshit on that...

Along the lines, that's like saying I should be very hesitant of hiring some guy who once worked at a mcdonalds as a cashier for a job working with databases with on-site training thrown in... (Oh no I'm not gonna allow some shmuck who worked at a greasetrap touch my delicate hardware...)

No one should care so long as the person is capable of doing the job regardless of such previous jobs/occupation; however I know that's not the reality of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one should care so long as the person is capable of doing the job regardless of such previous jobs/occupation; however I know that's not the reality of things.

This.

This this this.

Not trying to say that these things don't have an effect, just saying that they shouldn't. Things that have no bearing on your performance are not legitimate reasons to not hire/fire someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to say some of the opinions here amuse me. Sure I certainly would not like a violent person to be a cop, for instance, but expecting someone to act in professional decorum even in his/her personal life is abusive. You're forgetting that when a corporation monitors your myspace, orkut or try to gather too much data on you, that's called spying. But I suppose that's a characteristic of this decade: mixing personal and professional environments and an oppressive technocracy.

Let's not forget that, while this questionable way of gathering information could be used for good things, like checking if a person is too violent to be a policeman, it also opens a door for a person not to be hired or fired by their personal views of the world too. This includes political views or polemical views about things like abortion, euthanasia and so forth.

If this is not a step to a dictatorship of corporations, then I don't know anymore what is.

Furthermore, you keep talking about how that vampire guy could be so potentially immoral and violent, when there's no proof that this will lead to violent behavior (this is only justified by pure fear) and about how people that exaggerate on parties in their personal life have "a poor judgement". You shouldn't forget that the most immoral and dirty people are the ones that seem the most righteous: christian preaches, priests, and politicians, and so on. The ones you love and admiriate the most. Ironic, isn't it?

I rest my case for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine and dandy but when no one bothered you about it till some one complains about something entirely different I call bullshit on that...

How do you know this information was even known by the school prior to the complaint? Maybe the person intentionally tried to hide it, or maybe the school accepted her only on the condition that the information would never be released. It's simple - people have the right to complain about who their kids are being taught by. I would not feel comfortable if MY daughter's gym coach was an ex-Playboy bunny. Not at all. That person has no entitlement to a career as a high school teacher.

I guess that's the problem with your view right there. How well someone does a job is hardly the only factor to consider. A convicted felon might very well be an excellent accountant, but a reasonable person would agree that he should not be hired due to incredibly bad judgment he has shown in the past. Likewise, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is not going to hire a whiz P.R. agent who happens to be an alcoholic - EVEN if she never shows up to work drunk. I could really go on all day listing examples of people that could do jobs just fine, but for OTHER reasons are not suitable for the job.

If anyone who does dumb things with their friends on occasion is lacking in maturity and judgment, then there's no such thing as a mature person with good judgment on the planet. The only difference is that some people are better at hiding it than others.

It's a sliding scale. Some people might go out to bars with their friends every Friday, other people might binge drink at frat parties every night. There's a huge difference.

You're forgetting that when a corporation monitors your myspace, orkut or try to gather too much data on you, that's called spying.

No, it's not called spying. If you post something publicly for the world to see, and people see what you posted, you have absolutely no right to complain. NONE at all. Not much of an argument there.

People, you don't have a God-given right to a job at any particular company. They can evaluate you and choose to not hire you on any number of factors that are completely up to their discretion. It's their company, so they can choose the caliber and type of employees they want. The obvious exceptions to this rule is race (you don't have control over that), gender (likewise) and religion (a choice, but considered so important that it might as well not be a choice in the traditional sense), plus, hopefully, sexual orientation. If I'm a business owner with job openings, who are you to tell me that I have to hire frat boys? Maybe I don't want to, and prefer people who are very serious about their work and don't turn into morons afterward. It's my decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know this information was even known by the school prior to the complaint? Maybe the person intentionally tried to hide it, or maybe the school accepted her only on the condition that the information would never be released.

From what it seems, the school may have either not known, or did and didn't care until some one boohoo'ed all the while shitting on every one...

I was amazed at the absolute bullshit :lol: High standards my ass as it's all revenge :lol:

Thing is it was the coach's choice as a fucking adult. They are not forcing students to become models or posers for playboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not feel comfortable if MY daughter's gym coach was an ex-Playboy bunny. Not at all. That person has no entitlement to a career as a high school teacher.

Why not? Do you think that your children being taught by an ex-playboy bunny would make them sexually deranged? Rapists? I don't think so. I think it's bias of your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is funny... so much naïveté. :D And it's a little sad at the same time. Grow up. 'nuf said.

edit: clarification: everything's connected. you can't always do what you want. I'm with the grownups on this (aka zircon and bgc).

That's just it though, you're more than welcomed to allow yourself to be trampled but I rather not settle on standing for such bullshit when I see it.

Grandstanding surely isn't going to do one any good, but neither is simple accepting things that are deplorable if not harmful to many.

In this case, a school and students lost a good teacher...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you miss the big post I made replying to you and Audix? The one before Zircon's? This one? I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but you quoted the one post where I was being sarcastic like it was the only reply I made in the thread.

Nope, I saw it. I just summed it up, because it a) did specifically skip the ties to job screening and B) not attacking you here, but I found a lot of your rebuttal to be a little weak. If it makes you feel better though, here ya go :)

What's the difference? (I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the "not my blood" thing isn't actually a case of him going out and assaulting someone, but rather part of his "hey I'm a vampire lulz" fantasy land.) The fact that you're more comfortable with drinking than you are with pretending to be a vampire? Again, what he does in his personal life has nothing to do with how he performs his job.

I've already responded to this. Also, the difference is that lots of people drink. It's generally socially acceptable. Covering yourself in blood (fake or not) and walking around with a war-face and two guns in your hand is not.

You already said that they weren't particularly noticeable when he wasn't showing them off, so what's the different? Are you going to not hire someone because they have a tattoo that's usually covered by their sleeves? Or how about a guy with pierced ears?

:lol: really? You can't come up with a better rebuttal than this? Someone would notice, and it would inevitably become an issue to someone at some point.

Who cares? How is it relevant? Suppose I'm a hardcore teatotaling prohibitionist, and instead of Joe-Vampire I find Joe-Binge Drinker? Would that make it any better?

I'm not saying I'd be the one to do it, but you can bet that someone would. And the moment the sheriff's office gets a call about their vampire-cop, that's a LOT of trouble headed their way. Would you really expect them to be ok with that? *edit* As for the prohibitionist and joe-binge drinker, again (see below) it depends on the best interests of the company.

Pedophilia is illegal -- pretending to be a vampire is not. Having images of yourself pretending to be a vampire on your MySpace or whatever is fine; having images of yourself being a pedophile is a completely different thing. Comparing the two is like comparing someone who likes to play paintball with someone who likes to shoot people just to watch them die.

Already responded to this.

Firing (or not hiring) someone because of poor job performance (eg they're lazy) is a completely different thing than firing/not hiring someone because you saw pictures of them doing unprofessional things during their free time.

I know this is directed at Audix, but again, the extent of the content they posted online may have the potential to damage the reputation of the company. Since you seem to be referring to drinking/partying a lot in your arguments, let's break down some situations:

Let's say someone posts a picture of them at a party. They're holding a beer and making a funny face at the camera with their frinds. There's really nothing an employer can say about this picture that would justify concern for the individual's integrity.

Now, progressing through the album, we find a picture of the same person grabbing some girls boob. Another shows them standing on a table with their pants off. Yet another shows them on hands and knees vomiting on the floor. Finally we see a picture of them passed out with silly string and rubber bands covering their face and the words "I'm a [insert obsenety of choice here] drunk mother effer!" Is there anything wrong with any of this? It really depends on who you are asking. To you or me, the answer is probably "No, who cares what they like to do?"

To an employer, (or potential employer) they might start drawing conclusions in the best interest of the company, such as "Hmm, well, while partying in and of itself is ok, it seems like this person may have issues when it comes to self-control and obviously doen't really care all that much about their self-image. Can we really trust this person to do the right thing in difficult situations? If our customers saw these pictures, would it hurt business in any way? Can I rely on this person to perform their job adequately? If this is how they're spending their [pick a night], then can I really expect them to show up for work on-time the next morning and perform their duties without being inhibited by the previous night's activities?"

Again, this may not seem fair, as most of these questions are going to be hypothetical in the interview, but that doesn't matter. The company still has a right to be on the lookout for it's own interests. You have no right to be employeed by any company. You do have the right to not be denied employment for certain reasons but "potentially not being in the best interest of a company" is not one of them.

Then you must not like anyone because literally everyone does this. People act different in different situations. This is a fact. It's not a matter of people being "fake" or "two-faced" or "dishonest" or anything like that -- it's just that different situations call for different behavior.

Sort of, but you're missing my core meaning. Of course different situations call for different action. I'm talking about people who become a different person altogether in different situations. I don't talk to my mother about the same topics I discuss with my friends, but I don't act like someone I'm not in either situation. I'm not talking about the difference of behaving yourself in a church versus a sports game, I'm talking about maintaining personal consistency and good judgement.

Something about doing the nasty at home versus a public place.

this made me :lol: Again, you really overshot the mark, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what it seems, the school may have either not known, or did and didn't care until some one boohoo'ed all the while shitting on every one...

I was amazed at the absolute bullshit High standards my ass as it's all revenge

Thing is it was the coach's choice as a fucking adult. They are not forcing students to become models or posers for playboy.

Yes, and when ADULTS make choices, they have to deal with the consequences. The school most likely didn't have a problem with the teacher's previous profession, but as soon as that teacher's profession became known, other people clearly had a problem so the school took action. What's the problem here? You said it yourself. The coach made a choice. It was fully conscious and not coerced. If people judge her based on that choice, then she has to accept that, even if SHE thinks it's unfair.

Why not? Do you think that your children being taught by an ex-playboy bunny would make them sexually deranged? Rapists? I don't think so. I think it's bias of your part.

It's none of your business what my preference (or "bias") is. Really, none at all. If my tax dollars are going to a public school, I get a say in who I want to be teaching there. Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm a business owner with job openings, who are you to tell me that I have to hire frat boys? Maybe I don't want to, and prefer people who are very serious about their work and don't turn into morons afterward. It's my decision.

That's not the question here. Obviously it's the business owner's choice. The question is whether or not it's a legitimate one. We're saying no, it's not fair, and the only thing that should determine one's value as an employee is one's performance in the job you were hired to do.

Say someone's considering you for a job. They Google you and end up on OCR. They decide "wow, this guy is way into video games. He's obviously childish and immature, definitely not hiring him". Is that fair to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the question here. Obviously it's the business owner's choice. The question is whether or not it's a legitimate one. We're saying no, it's not fair, and the only thing that should determine one's value as an employee is one's performance in the job you were hired to do.

If you're not arguing about the legality of this choice, then why are you arguing? It's like trying to convince me that vanilla is better than chocolate, or vice versa. Doesn't matter who's opinion is correct. If we're affording businesses the right to hire who they want, then why are you complaining about it when they exercise that choice? :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along the lines, that's like saying I should be very hesitant of hiring some guy who once worked at a mcdonalds as a cashier for a job working with databases with on-site training thrown in... (Oh no I'm not gonna allow some shmuck who worked at a greasetrap touch my delicate hardware...)
That is not the same thing at all. If that "shmuck" showed a willingness to work hard and was a reliable, motivated employee, an employer would never hesitate to hire that person.

That's not the question here. Obviously it's the business owner's choice. The question is whether or not it's a legitimate one. We're saying no, it's not fair, and the only thing that should determine one's value as an employee is one's performance in the job you were hired to do

It's a completely legitimate choice, and completely fair. I've explained why several times already. :|

edit: clarification: everything's connected. you can't always do what you want. I'm with the grownups on this (aka zircon and bgc).

Must have missed my section. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read this thread in its entirety over the last half hour. Now I'll try to address the more recent points...

I've agreed with both sides of the argument of using social networking sites to fire/hire/not hire/whatever an employee. However, to me there are certain flaws in the arguments presented.

Yes, posting pictures, videos, your hobbies, whatever on your publically visible Facebook is your fault, but is also under your control. I agree with the view that if you put it up for those to see it, then anyone who sees it can judge you based on that. Take this (somewhat specific example):

You happen to like drinking at a bar every other night with your buddies and you happen to get quite rambunctious most nights if not every night. The next day you go to work and you're very professional. The twist, however, is that the bartender who always serves you your favorite drink also knows your boss. Your boss happens to find out about your drinking (problematic or not) hobby and fires you based on that decision.

Now how is this different/same as posting pictures of yourself drinking online? Difference, you're voluntarily posting pictures of yourself on a public profile viewable to your employer should they choose to make a search for you (motives aside) rather than your employer finding out you drink by chance. Similarity, the end result is the same.

You may think this is a poor example, hell it might be. But I think this illustrates the discrepancies in the semantics of your arguments. Your views on the internet and how social networks and their "rules" of communication are the foundation of your arguments. I believe Jovian equates the social norms of "real-life" communication are applied to the internet. Te objects to judging someone on their extra-curricular activities, no matter the environment. I also find that bgc and Zircon view a slight difference to Jovian in that since the things you put on the internet (without a private setting/password) IS public AND (typically) readily accessible, you should be more responsible of how you display yourself.

Bottom line, face reality, protect yourself. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinions, Jovian specifically, but there's not much you can do about it. I do agree that it's kind of low for employers to do a search for you, but it's something that you have to protect yourself from, not get them to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know this information was even known by the school prior to the complaint? Maybe the person intentionally tried to hide it, or maybe the school accepted her only on the condition that the information would never be released. It's simple - people have the right to complain about who their kids are being taught by. I would not feel comfortable if MY daughter's gym coach was an ex-Playboy bunny. Not at all. That person has no entitlement to a career as a high school teacher.

I guess that's the problem with your view right there. How well someone does a job is hardly the only factor to consider. A convicted felon might very well be an excellent accountant, but a reasonable person would agree that he should not be hired due to incredibly bad judgment he has shown in the past. Likewise, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is not going to hire a whiz P.R. agent who happens to be an alcoholic - EVEN if she never shows up to work drunk. I could really go on all day listing examples of people that could do jobs just fine, but for OTHER reasons are not suitable for the job.

People, you don't have a God-given right to a job at any particular company. They can evaluate you and choose to not hire you on any number of factors that are completely up to their discretion. It's their company, so they can choose the caliber and type of employees they want. The obvious exceptions to this rule is race (you don't have control over that), gender (likewise) and religion (a choice, but considered so important that it might as well not be a choice in the traditional sense), plus, hopefully, sexual orientation. If I'm a business owner with job openings, who are you to tell me that I have to hire frat boys? Maybe I don't want to, and prefer people who are very serious about their work and don't turn into morons afterward. It's my decision.

I think this kind of thinking, while reasonable in certain cases, can lead to dangerous consequences. Essentially, I think it has to be a case by case basis. What is your aversion to frat boys or playboy bunnies as a group? What reasonable conclusions can you draw about these people based on this one characteristic about them? What if that frat boy needed a strong social base because he came from a broken family? What if this playboy bunny had to do this work to pay her bills? And if they were headed for careers where this sort of thing wouldn't have been an issue, but then decided to head in a different direction where they run into these problems, what recourse do they have?

Basically, when we get down to individuals, I think we have to take everything in context. Let's take someone applying to a competitive grad school. The school looks over the GPA and see it's not too hot. Sure, they COULD toss the applicant out right then and there, but is that ultimately the smart thing to do without considering other factors as well? I wouldn't think so.

Making assumptions about any group based on something they do only leads to trouble. I've learned this about smokers, for example, the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pezman, you missed the point entirely. My point was that it's the employer's choice to decide who they want to hire (or fire) and for what reasons. There are a few obvious reasons that can't be considered, like things you don't have control over (eg. race, gender.) However, previous occupations, activities, and personality... these things are all completely legit. Whether or not you personally agree or disagree with any given employer's decision doesn't matter, it's still fair because it's their company and they can do what they want. So, no, it's not dangerous thinking at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys know that when you interview for a job, they're not just trying to see if you're qualified, but they're making a character judgement, right? That's why people always tell you "have a firm handshake, look them in the eye, etc. etc. blah blah blah." Employers almost never hire a person based on qualifications alone. If they did, there'd be no need for interviews; you'd just be hired based on your resume. xD

Employers have always taken a person's character into account, and yes, they will use the internet to do their research. It's very easy to misrepresent yourself in an interview, and employers will use whatever tools they can to make sure they're making the right decision. If that means not hiring some dude who spends his weeknights boozing and posting pics of himself vomiting all-over his carpet, or some gamer who brags about pulling all-nighter Gears of War 2 sessions, or some chick that posts slutty pics of herself at bars, then that's their prerogative. They're making a character judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, just because things are legal doesn't mean they're right (from an ethical point of view). Sure, you can hire or fire whoever you want. It's your corporation anyway, isn't it? However, how ethical it is to do "research" on people's lives? What if your boss decided to research more about your friends, or where do you live, or the hospitals you go to? The illnesses you got?

Say, if you decided to hide information from your boss, he/she could still create a fake profile and make you accept him as a friend (so he can learn more about you). That's not illegal. But is this ethical?

You guys are missing the point. You're opening a door to legitimize this kind of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, how ethical it is to do "research" on people's lives?

It's completely ethical. If I'm looking for someone to work for my company, and I'm going to hand them tens, maybe HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars every year, I want to know who I'm hiring!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and when ADULTS make choices, they have to deal with the consequences. The school most likely didn't have a problem with the teacher's previous profession, but as soon as that teacher's profession became known, other people clearly had a problem so the school took action. What's the problem here? You said it yourself. The coach made a choice. It was fully conscious and not coerced. If people judge her based on that choice, then she has to accept that, even if SHE thinks it's unfair.

So if the school knows, hires the coach anyway and then someone blackmails her it suddenly became wrong? So none of this matter, as long as you don't get caught? Hm. Smells like hipocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...