[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I guess then that begs the question, if having little experience of something invalidates your opinion, why is it that MP's are so often commenting on and making policies for people that they have absolutely no contact and experiences with? If the people running this country are going to pass judgement on things they have next to no experience of, I may as well myself. That's also like saying a straight person's opinion on gay marriage isn't as valid as they aren't gay themselves and so couldn't fully understand.

.

good point!

Originally Posted by Jack_

On the point of employers looking at your Facebook page to see who 'you really are', I refer you to a post I made a bit earlier in the thread about how I question whether social networking sites actually are an accurate representation of one's true self, character and personality, for better or worse. I'm not entirely convinced a few static images and lines of text on a web page can truly reflect what somebody is like as a person in real life, or, more importantly - an employee.

Exactly, go to uni for 3 years end up in thousands of pounds in debt, and not get a job because some twonk in IT saw pics you were tagged in you drunk at your cousins wedding?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I guess then that begs the question, if having little experience of something invalidates your opinion, why is it that MP's are so often commenting on and making policies for people that they have absolutely no contact and experiences with? If the people running this country are going to pass judgement on things they have next to no experience of, I may as well myself. That's also like saying a straight person's opinion on gay marriage isn't as valid as they aren't gay themselves and so couldn't fully understand.

I never said anyone has a right to a job, but hey, surely it's better for everyone to be in one, no? If we're just going to go about sacking people willy nilly and putting more power in the hands of employers, organisations and the market, especially when there's unemployment problems in this country, then as long as tax payers are happy footing the bill for their welfare support, I'm all for it. Sack people or refuse people jobs for posting questionable material on their personal online profiles all you want, but you're only going to give yourself more problems in the end.

On the point of employers looking at your Facebook page to see who 'you really are', I refer you to a post I made a bit earlier in the thread about how I question whether social networking sites actually are an accurate representation of one's true self, character and personality, for better or worse. I'm not entirely convinced a few static images and lines of text on a web page can truly reflect what somebody is like as a person in real life, or, more importantly - an employee.

Yeah, that's not the same thing. MPs have advisors, they don't go into something cold like you're doing here. You have a valid opinion. Unfortunately that opinion flags up that you really don't know too much about it, you're knee-jerking.

Of course it's better for everyone to be in a job. But I'm not going to employ a dedicated party boy if I've got a more serious, studious candidate. That's the bottom line. And as Omah said earlier, a Facebook page can also work for you, and if you're smart you'll understand that too.

You're going way over the top on this one Jack. All you have to do is set your privacy setting, but you think that's too much to ask. I'd like to have this conversation with you when you are older and have a bit more life experience, have had a few interviews and maybe even sat on an interview panel or two. Until then, you're just crusading about this without really knowing too much about it. So as I've said all I have to say on the subject, I'll leave it there.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yeah, that's not the same thing. MPs have advisors, they don't go into something cold like you're doing here. You have a valid opinion. Unfortunately that opinion flags up that you really don't know too much about it, you're knee-jerking.

Of course it's better for everyone to be in a job. But I'm not going to employ a dedicated party boy if I've got a more serious, studious candidate. That's the bottom line. And as Omah said earlier, a Facebook page can also work for you, and if you're smart you'll understand that too.

You're going way over the top on this one Jack. All you have to do is set your privacy setting, but you think that's too much to ask. I'd like to have this conversation with you when you are older and have a bit more life experience, have had a few interviews and maybe even sat on an interview panel or two. Until then, you're just crusading about this without really knowing too much about it. So as I've said all I have to say on the subject, I'll leave it there.

I agree with everything you've said .....

[Kizzy]

What do advisors know, what experience have they got? About as much as MP's.
It is wrong to make judgements on the work ethic of an individual due to pictures of them in their leisure time.
that is my main issue, i don't believe for one second that it can be used as a guage to assess good character.
It is what it is, a gross invasion into the private lives of individuals.
To take an employer to a tribunal you must have had 2yrs employment, if you were such a feckless party animal would that not have been evident in that time?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Exactly, go to uni for 3 years end up in thousands of pounds in debt, and not get a job because some twonk in IT saw pics you were tagged in you drunk at your cousins wedding?

Precisely. To believe that's an accurate reflection of someone's true self is ludicrous to be quite honest. Delusional even.

Maybe I have got it all wrong though and indeed the majority of people on Facebook spend 95% of their lives off their faces having pictures taken of them sh*tting in club toilets around the world. Because pictures tell the whole story don't they?

Originally Posted by Livia

Yeah, that's not the same thing. MPs have advisors, they don't go into something cold like you're doing here. You have a valid opinion. Unfortunately that opinion flags up that you really don't know too much about it, you're knee-jerking.

Of course it's better for everyone to be in a job. But I'm not going to employ a dedicated party boy if I've got a more serious, studious candidate. That's the bottom line. And as Omah said earlier, a Facebook page can also work for you, and if you're smart you'll understand that too.

You're going way over the top on this one Jack. All you have to do is set your privacy setting, but you think that's too much to ask. I'd like to have this conversation with you when you are older and have a bit more life experience, have had a few interviews and maybe even sat on an interview panel or two. Until then, you're just crusading about this without really knowing too much about it. So as I've said all I have to say on the subject, I'll leave it there.

Because of course their advisors are totally unbiased, impartial and don't have any links with multinational organisations and/or media institutions.

Again - how does a few pictures of someone drunk on a social networking site mean they're now a bonafide 'party boy'? Forget actually getting to know their true self in real life and in the workplace, or monitoring their progress if they're already in work, let's judge them on a few pictures of them out with their friends at the weekend. Sack the alcoholics! And ah yes that's it, start patronising and belittling people when there's nothing else to respond with. The classic approach

Originally Posted by Omah

I agree with everything you've said .....

Are you actually going to respond to any of the arguments I presented you with in this thread or are you just going to continue to take words and phrases from my posts and spin them into bitchy little comments, and quote others that have replied to me in an attempt to discretely bait as well?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is wrong to make judgements on the work ethic of an individual due to pictures of them in their leisure time.
that is my main issue, i don't believe for one second that it can be used as a guage to assess good character.
It is what it is, a gross invasion into the private lives of individuals.

It's up to the individual to set their privacy settings - if they haven't got the common sense to do that (or find out how to do it) then they're not much use to any employer .....

If there's no "evidence" in the public domain, there's no problem - no pictures, no judgement .....

[Jack_]

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

It's up to the individual to set their privacy settings - if they haven't got the common sense to do that (or find out how to do it) then they're not much use to any employer .....

If there's no "evidence" in the public domain, there's no problem - no pictures, no judgement .....

That's not the issue though is it?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of this practice.

[AnnieK]

This has gotten out of hand and way beyond the realms of the debate really. An employer is not going to sack someone because of random pictures. It is merely to do with having two candidates applying for the same job, both have the exact same qualifications, experience and skills. Candidate a posts on an open Facebook profile that they have had a large weekend, got pissed, took drugs so can feel a sickie coming on on Monday. Hates his ****ing job anyway they are all wankers. Candidate B does exactly the same at the weekend but doesn't post on Facebook it has privacy settings switched on. Employer can't decide between the two candidates so has a bit of a surf. Comes across candidate as Facebook profile, alarm bells ring employs candidate b. Who can blame them??

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by anniek76

This has gotten out of hand and way beyond the realms of the debate really. An employer is not going to sack someone because of random pictures. It is merely to do with having two candidates applying for the same job, both have the exact same qualifications, experience and skills. Candidate a posts on an open Facebook profile that they have had a large weekend, got pissed, took drugs so can feel a sickie coming on on Monday. Hates his ****ing job anyway they are all wankers. Candidate B does exactly the same at the weekend but doesn't post on Facebook it has privacy settings switched on. Employer can't decide between the two candidates so has a bit of a surf. Comes across candidate as Facebook profile, alarm bells ring employs candidate b. Who can blame them??

why?...
has anyone said anything offensive or derogatory... There are accusations that companies are paying IT professionals to hack into fb accounts to retrieve information, do you agree with this also?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

why?...
has anyone said anything offensive or derogatory... There are accusations that companies are paying IT professionals to hack into fb accounts to retrieve information, do you agree with this also?

No because they are allegations kizzy. I work with many large organisations, am a member of various recruitment bodies etc and have never heard of any such practices ever. It's getting out of hand as people are suggesting people are getting sacked for posting photos of nights out and that is not the basis of the original post it is about damaging job prospects. As I have posted earlier dishonest sick days cost the economy Ł3 bn so employers naturally have to try to protect themselves.

[Ammi]

..anyone can look at public information on Facebook and make a ‘judgement’ if they want to..it doesn’t have to be a prospective employer and people do make judgements all the time, whether thet’re accurate or not..on hairstyles, clothes etc, whether it is relevant or not, judgements are made on lots of things by anyone you could pass in the street, it’s just a fact of life...

It doesn’t necessarily say if a person parties at the weekend that they couldn’t be outstanding employees as it doesn’t say anything about them in other areas..but to me, it’s no different from say, an advisor telling you to keep your house tidy, clutter free etc when you’re showing round prospective buyers..it doesn’t mean that it’s how it is all the time but if you want to ‘sell’ something to someone then it’s just a bit of sound advice to show it at its best...it just seems logical to not do anything to invite that judgement in the first place by setting a privacy option..that way, you’re doing something for yourself to increase your chances in what is quite a competitive market...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by anniek76

No because they are allegations kizzy. I work with many large organisations, am a member of various recruitment bodies etc and have never heard of any such practices ever. It's getting out of hand as people are suggesting people are getting sacked for posting photos of nights out and that is not the basis of the original post it is about damaging job prospects. As I have posted earlier dishonest sick days cost the economy Ł3 bn so employers naturally have to try to protect themselves.

I haven't suggested anyone is in danger of being sacked.
It is the assumption that new candidates can be vetted via social media I am opposed to.
I saw your statistics, where are the statistics to show this new endevour of screening potential employees via holiday snaps is working to reduce the cost to the economy?

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I haven't suggested anyone is in danger of being sacked.
It is the assumption that new candidates can be vetted via social media I am opposed to.
I saw your statistics, where are the statistics to show this new endevour of screening potential employees via holiday snaps is working to reduce the cost to the economy?

Can I ask why you are opposed to this form of vetting kizzy? If you were employing someone and paying them a good salary would you not want to have all the information you could to ensure you are getting value for your money if that information is freely available? As I have said its not that much different from references before companies became too scared of litigation to make actual comments about work performance. You seem to be trivialising my comments by saying "screening candidates via holiday snaps" when I have given the examples of how employers view it further up this page, it's nothing to do holiday snaps.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Because of course their advisors are totally unbiased, impartial and don't have any links with multinational organisations and/or media institutions.

Again - how does a few pictures of someone drunk on a social networking site mean they're now a bonafide 'party boy'? Forget actually getting to know their true self in real life and in the workplace, or monitoring their progress if they're already in work, let's judge them on a few pictures of them out with their friends at the weekend. Sack the alcoholics! And ah yes that's it, start patronising and belittling people when there's nothing else to respond with. The classic approach

Yes, usually their advisors are unbiased, apart from being biased toward the industry or area on which they are advising. You're getting way off the topic though.

People don't have time to find the "true self" of someone, which is why they look at Facebook, check references and interview.

I am not patronising and belittling you, Jack. You have nothing else to offer this argument but a littany of reasons why someone should be able to party, post their pics on their facebook page, not have people judge them and give them a job over a more suitably settled, mature, discreet applicant. It's not going to happen.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's not the issue though is it?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of this practice.

That is exactly the issue - people shouldn't publicly post what they don't want non-specific others to read.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by anniek76

This has gotten out of hand and way beyond the realms of the debate really. An employer is not going to sack someone because of random pictures. It is merely to do with having two candidates applying for the same job, both have the exact same qualifications, experience and skills. Candidate a posts on an open Facebook profile that they have had a large weekend, got pissed, took drugs so can feel a sickie coming on on Monday. Hates his ****ing job anyway they are all wankers. Candidate B does exactly the same at the weekend but doesn't post on Facebook it has privacy settings switched on. Employer can't decide between the two candidates so has a bit of a surf. Comes across candidate as Facebook profile, alarm bells ring employs candidate b. Who can blame them??

Not me .....

Simples, ain't it .....

[Jack_]

Social networks blur reality and representation

By Anna Roitman on Monday, April 13th, 2009

Social networks have enabled human beings to have a platform for self-representation. Each person has his or her own account in one or two of them, into which they pour a collage of their mental-external- ideological-political-artistic self. It enables people to interact based on the data placed on each others pages and partake in many so called “social” activities. If one does not belong to a social network they can consider themselves out of the sphere of human interaction. In our busy world it has become an alternative way to keep your social life with as many people as you can at the same time. While aware of the many advantages of the social networks, and being an active user myself, I can not refrain from wondering about reality and the representation of it in those networks. The page contains the name and picture of a person that I seem to know, but is the representation of him or her the way they choose to do it on their web page or is it their true self? Moreover, these networks has driven information from reality into the virtual world and it is popping back into reality many times.

The best example for it is that many employers in western countries tend to search in a search engine for the perspective employees name to find their social network personal page, and this can many times determine if the person is hired or not, all depending on the representation of the perspective employee creates in the virtual world. In another case a boss caught staff members faking an illness by looking at their facebook status. The social network page is in fact your representation in the eyes of those who know you or those who do not know you. Despite the reality feature of familiar names and pictures, this is far from being reality.

Net predators and employer-employee relations are only small examples of how complex self-representation has become online. There are many dangers based on these “truths” and this generation is being raised to believe in truths as they appear on the personal newsfeed of a social network. One should transcend from the realm of the auto portrayal to understand that beyond it there is a person who can not be explained by pictures, videos or status lines. The essence of a person’s true spirit remains abstract and it is a riddle that will not be solved by looking at a mere representation, even if created by him.

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/soc...entation-2121/

Last bit in bold is particularly true. Great quote.

[the truth]

Ive employed probably around 50 people in the past 5 years and interviewed several hundred more....whilst Ive never sacked anyone directly because of facebook, lets just say some of the stuff theyve written on there has been part of the overall reasoning behind letting some people go. Its all part of a pattern of disrespectful behaviour. I wont go into specifics but lets just say some workers and drivers, think having an accident is funny? This level of idiocy is dangerous and unmanageable. In the mainstream news you wont get to hear the details of this stupidity, all you hear is soundbites often from some poor handpicked chap who claims there are no jobs, rubbish there are always jobs...But trust me this behaviour seems widespread to me. You dont hear much from employers as theyre too busy working 20 hours a day trying to keep their company afloat. (with the endless new laws from europe plus local government its getting ever more time consuming too) Goodness knows what theyre teaching these people in school. They dont even grasp the fact that the whole world can see how they behave especially on facebook and people with so little respect for their jobs, their employers, the safety of customers etc soon build a bad reputation and quickly being unemployable. Good people never tell badly behaved people, youre bad. They just avoid them for life, then all the badly behaved people are left with is fellow badly behaved people. Then they share their hard luck stories and wonder for the next 50 years why no one offers them a job.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jack_

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/soc...entation-2121/

Last bit in bold is particularly true. Great quote.

It's a three year old, blustering, self-important, wordy, overwritten, really rather poorly constructed blog. When Anna Roitman finally gets herself a proper job, let's hope she's toned down her copywriting to a less dictatorial level and put her social network pages on private.

[Omah]

http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-...vacy-settings/

As details of Facebook's Graph Search unfolded this morning, users heaved a sigh of relief when they learned that Facebook would not be exposing our innermost privacies with its latest product -- the company would simply search the data we've already (willfully) shared and make it easily accessible to friends. Everything -- I mean, everything -- you've shared with friends on Facebook will be contributed to the index.

For example:

•Shared data from apps you use, like Spotify (it's not yet used in Graph Search, but will be in the near future)
•Tagged photos, including those with associated locations and times
•Interests, like music, TV shows, and blogs
•Facebook check-ins
•Your "About" section, including career, relationship status, and religious or political views

No matter how subtle the piece of information, friends can and will dig it up using Graph Search.

Graph Search opens doors to exploring our social network in an entirely new fashion, an opportunity that will ideally translate into richer real-life interactions. (And not just advanced Facebook stalking techniques.)

The positive implications of Graph Search are plentiful, but it's still wise to approach the tool with caution, tidying up your privacy and content before the tool goes live to everyone.

So as the reality of the situation sinks in, now is a perfect time to adjust your privacy settings, and hide content you've shared in the past so that friends are only uncovering the personal information you're willing to share.

1. Comb through your Activity Log

2. Limit the info apps are sharing

3. Prune your Likes

4. Update your About Me section

Graph Search will undoubtedly open doors to using Facebook in new ways, like job recruiting. One of the ways employers will do this is by searching for things like "People who live in Seattle and have worked at Amazon." The only way a recruiter will be able to find you is if you have elected to share that information in the About section of your Timeline.

Beyond that, you might also want to review other things you share about yourself, like religious and political views, along with your relationship status and location.

5. Be more cautious in the future

Graph Search is a positive addition to Facebook, so as you clean up your past posts and activity, don't hesitate to also add interests and likes, letting friends and acquaintances discover reasons to connect with you.

Sound advice .....

[the truth]

its not just about being smart about keeping things private and covering up bad behaviour, its about behaving like a better more moral person 24 hours a day

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by the truth

its not just about being smart about keeping things private and covering up bad behaviour, its about behaving like a better more moral person 24 hours a day

It's also about not posting personal details about your life and you as a person on the Internet for literally millions of people to see. These are your own personal images which to people who know you can be appreciated in context, but to strangers they mean nothing other than what they depict.

So to be honest no do not upload personal info to the waiting masses it's none of their business and should remain none of their business ...!!!

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

It's also about not posting personal details about your life and you as a person on the Internet for literally millions of people to see. These are your own personal images which to people who know you can be appreciated in context, but to strangers they mean nothing other than what they depict.

So to be honest no do not upload personal info to the waiting masses it's none of their business and should remain none of their business ...!!!

its awful

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by anniek76;5805526[B

]Can I ask why you are opposed to this form of vetting kizzy? [/B] If you were employing someone and paying them a good salary would you not want to have all the information you could to ensure you are getting value for your money if that information is freely available? As I have said its not that much different from references before companies became too scared of litigation to make actual comments about work performance. You seem to be trivialising my comments by saying "screening candidates via holiday snaps" when I have given the examples of how employers view it further up this page, it's nothing to do holiday snaps.

How many times can I say it annie, it is an invasion of privacy.
You are taking someone on to fill a position this to my mind does not entitle anyone to make judgements on what they do with their free time.
I am in no way trivialising your position on this, I just don't happen to agree it is possible to correctly assess the character of a candidate with information attained through social media.