#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
In the age of the internet, many employers have started looking up potential employees' on social media, such as facebook. The same is true among college admissions officers. Is this an invasion of privacy. Even though things may have been posted to the public, does that make it alright?
Yes, it is wrong.
Side Score: 79
|
 |
No, it is not wrong.
Side Score: 153
|
|
Here's the more relevant question. Since when was it ok to demand perfection for bad and ill paying jobs from put upon people most consider flawed who don't have the right to significant competition as it is part of health? We supposedly have the right to life without the right to maintain it. How duplicitous. Then one profession after another drops out of entry and survival levels then add our right to banish. Understand this no employer of any ethics has a right to perfection without the right of employees to competitive health. It is way too easy to diffuse responsibility. I've seen it. Examples that for all their unimpressiveness were singularly cruel and potentially lethal. That is not judgement, it comoditizing cowardice. Only nobody declines commodities, even those this corrupting. So yes it's wrong. Side: Yes, it is wrong.
2
points
There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. Social media sites are public. Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1
point
1
point
What if it turned out the person was dishonest, and posted passwords from the last company he was at on Facebook, which got him fired. Is a new business not allowed to know about that? Wouldn't that put the business at risk if they hired this person? Side: No, it is not wrong.
2
points
Privacy is a right, but by posting something to the public sphere where it can be accessed by any, aren't people waiving their right to privacy? Also, how does free speech apply here? Just because some uses free speech to do something wrong doesn't make the wrong thing ok... Side: No, it is not wrong.
3
points
That's true, but looking at something that is in public view is not unlawful search and seizure. You're trying to distract. It is illegal for a person to go up to you for no good reason and say, empty your pockets, and if they find illegal drugs, arrest you. But if you stand right next to them and smoke illegal drugs in plain sight, that's on you. You've said again and again on this debate the same thing, regardless of what has been said to you. it's fine to stick with your beliefs, but you HAVE to respond to what points other people are saying to you. If you believe it to be true, then you must believe their arguments are false, so explain why. If you cannot do this and continue to spam, I will ban you from this debate. This is your warning. Side: No, it is not wrong.
2
points
1
point
Even though everyone down votes, you abuse the power, to the point where it a form of the ad hominem fallacy (you try to bolster your position by discrediting your opponent. On your reward point page, 57 of you past 96 points are down votes. That's almost 60%. You spend more than half of your time discrediting others as opposed to adding to debates. And that's all over 6 days. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
1
point
2
points
You don't have a "right" to downvote - whether they downvote you first or not (and I almost never downvote you, but you downvote me all the time - so don't pretend you play by rules that you don't.) You have a privilege granted to you by the website owner/creator. If Andy got rid of the downvote feature tomorrow, would you still have the "right" to downvote people? Side: No, it is not wrong.
Side: No, it is not wrong.
2
points
This debate is about employers stalking their employees. What do you have to say about that? The same question can be asked of you. You stated your opinion, but when asked to expand upon your opinion or when faced with counters, you added nothing. That is bad debating. Also, debates can have tangents. That's okay. And someone is debating poorly, that is on topic, because it is countering the arguments they have made. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
Ad homenim fallacy. . Something you have been guilty of time and time again, particularly in this debate. Even though you may think it's ok, excessive downvoting is a form of ad homenim. Also, many of your arguments are very clearly copy and pasted. That is bad debating. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
1
point
2
points
So is your argument that you should have free speech, but no one should be allowed to listen to the things you have to say? Because that's what you are arguing right now. If you don't actually respond to this and simply restate your previous point, you are proving the points we have been making against you. Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1
point
Do you mean to say that the kind of person someone is can never have any impact on how they will behave at work? Basically. What job would be affected? There are rules for how you behave at work and what you do away from work will not show how you act at work. And by posting something to a public space, why shouldn't people be allowed to view this space? You aren't working, how are you supposed to look professional when you aren't working? There is nothing positive that can come from looking at it, only neutral and negative. The negative reaction is rarely justified so an employer should just avoid looking. Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1
point
If you are hiring someone to be a police officer and all their facebook posts are pictures of them slacking off at jobs; they post abusive comments; etc. etc. it can show that this is not a person that would be good for that job. It's why we have interviews; character evaluation is an important part of any hiring. Do you honestly think that if I do a really good job at my work but then spend the rest of the time breaking the law, slacking off, and being abusive there is no job out there that would care? You aren't working, how are you supposed to look professional when you aren't working? No one said that the employers were looking for you to be professional when you weren't working. There is nothing positive that can come from looking at it, only neutral and negative. Sure something positive can come from it. It's only one data point, and things like interviews, resumés, and references will obviously be more important, but if you see a person joking around with their friends on Facebook and you want to create a jovial environment at your work, that's a factor. The negative reaction is rarely justified so an employer should just avoid looking. Well, that's for the employer to decide, and if all that you are saying is true, an employer would probably know this. They are people too, and they understand that people aren't always profession in their spare time. But that doesn't answer the question I posed, which is why shouldn't people be allowed to view something that you post to a public space? Side: No, it is not wrong.
If you are hiring someone to be a police officer and all their facebook posts are pictures of them slacking off at jobs People don't post pictures of themselves at work. they post abusive comments Perfect for law enforcement, jk. It's why we have interviews; character evaluation is an important part of any hiring. If they can't figure it out in an interview they suck at their job as hiring manager. Do you honestly think that if I do a really good job at my work but then spend the rest of the time breaking the law, slacking off, and being abusive there is no job out there that would care? You aren't allowed to slack off in your free time? If you do a really good job it doesn't matter if you are abusive to people outside work. If you aren't actually getting in trouble for the stuff that can be seen in your photos how badly did you really break the law? No one said that the employers were looking for you to be professional when you weren't working. They are looking for unprofessional behavior in posts about the times you aren't working. You may not realize it, but that is what you were saying. Sure something positive can come from it. It's only one data point, and things like interviews, resumés, and references will obviously be more important, but if you see a person joking around with their friends on Facebook and you want to create a jovial environment at your work, that's a factor. So, that is what complete denial sounds like. No one will ever be hired because they can improve the work environment based on what is seen through facebook. Well, that's for the employer to decide, and if all that you are saying is true, an employer would probably know this. They are people too That's exactly why they won't know it. People react stupidly all the time. and they understand that people aren't always profession in their spare time. I disagree. But that doesn't answer the question I posed, which is why shouldn't people be allowed to view something that you post to a public space? I am saying they shouldn't do it. If the company doesn't pay you enough to judge your personal life then they shouldn't do it. Standard jobs don't pay near enough to get that kind of judgement. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
People don't post pictures of themselves at work. It was an example. There are tons of pictures that people post and comments/status they can make that can have direct relationships to jobs. Perfect for law enforcement, jk. Lol. If they can't figure it out in an interview they suck at their job as hiring manager. It's not that they cannot figure it out. But as a hiring manager, it is their job to use all the resources they have to make sure the person is the right fit for their job. Internet personas are in the public sphere, so they are not doing anything illegal to get the information. Jobs are always evolving, and why wouldn't hiring managers take advantage of all the resources they have at their disposal? You aren't allowed to slack off in your free time? If you do a really good job it doesn't matter if you are abusive to people outside work. If you aren't actually getting in trouble for the stuff that can be seen in your photos how badly did you really break the law? Slacking off was a bad example. But you made the argument that who a person is in their free time has no influence on who they are in the workplace. Employers often want to create communities, and ideally bonds that can extend outside of the workplace. As such, how does it make sense to bring someone in who you know engages in harmful behavior? They are looking for unprofessional behavior in posts about the times you aren't working. You may not realize it, but that is what you were saying. That is not a guarantee. College admissions officers who do the same thing are not simply searching for unprofessional behavior, they want to learn more about who the applicant is as a person, not just on paper. The same is true for employers. Just because unprofessional things can cause problems, doesn't mean it's the only thing that's wrong. And yes, lets say they are looking for things like that. If something exists that could be a legitimate reason to not hire someone and the information regarding whether or not they have done that exists in the public sphere, why can't employers view that? So, that is what complete denial sounds like. No one will ever be hired because they can improve the work environment based on what is seen through facebook. I did not say that, at all. The central point of the note you pulled was that social media and who the person is on the internet is only one data point, and probably a small one. But it still is one, and is representative in part of who this person is to their friends, family, and how they behave. That's exactly why they won't know it. People react stupidly all the time. As I said, things like this are only one data point, and employers do tend to be a bit more forgiving than you think. If everyone is posting stupid things, then employers can't overreact to everyone, because then no one would get hired. They are people They have the ability to understand. And if that is universally true, then the solution is to be more cautious about what you put into the public sphere. Employers are aware the privacy is important, and they are aware that you can control what you put out to the world. By posting something that could get you fired/not hired to a public space and then to get upset when people view it is immensely hypocritical. I said: and they understand that people aren't always profession in their spare time. I disagree. Ok, why? This one I think needs some backup, because you just made a claim that every single employer things that every single employee needs to be professional 100% of the time. I am saying they shouldn't do it. If the company doesn't pay you enough to judge your personal life then they shouldn't do it. Standard jobs don't pay near enough to get that kind of judgement. That still doesn't quite answer why internet persona's should be off-limits. By that logic, are you against interviews at all? Should people be hired solely based on merit? And even if they don't pay enough, say they have 2 candidates. Both have the same credentials, and one is a person who is generally responsible, nice, and would be a nice addition to the workplace, and the other is not. Who do you pick? Is it wrong to use those factors at all? Side: Yes, it is wrong.
It was an example. There are tons of pictures that people post and comments/status they can make that can have direct relationships to jobs. Yeah, they can do lots of things, but they don't so it is irrelevant. It's not that they cannot figure it out. But as a hiring manager, it is their job to use all the resources they have to make sure the person is the right fit for their job. Internet personas are in the public sphere, so they are not doing anything illegal to get the information. Jobs are always evolving, and why wouldn't hiring managers take advantage of all the resources they have at their disposal? You are wasting your time rejecting qualified employees that will do a good job. If they had actual correlation between bad facebook posts and poor job performance I would reconsider, but they don't. Slacking off was a bad example. But you made the argument that who a person is in their free time has no influence on who they are in the workplace. Employers often want to create communities, and ideally bonds that can extend outside of the workplace. As such, how does it make sense to bring someone in who you know engages in harmful behavior? They will also refuse people who engage in behavior that is fine but different than expected. That is not a guarantee. College admissions officers who do the same thing are not simply searching for unprofessional behavior, they want to learn more about who the applicant is as a person, not just on paper. In other words college admissions officers are not looking for people who will succeed in college. And yes, lets say they are looking for things like that. If something exists that could be a legitimate reason to not hire someone and the information regarding whether or not they have done that exists in the public sphere, why can't employers view that? What is the punishment to the company that rejects someone for something that isn't legitimate? I did not say that, at all. The central point of the note you pulled was that social media and who the person is on the internet is only one data point, and probably a small one. But it still is one, and is representative in part of who this person is to their friends, family, and how they behave. It isn't even enough to be considered a data point. It is a checkbox. "Did this person do something bad? No, ok hire them." and employers do tend to be a bit more forgiving than you think Oh, so I am overreacting about them overreacting, so they should just do whatever they want. If everyone is posting stupid things, then employers can't overreact to everyone Everyone does stupid things, not everyone posts them or gets discovered. They are people They have the ability to understand. Their job is to hire someone to work because they aren't able to do real work, there is no proof they understand. And if that is universally true, then the solution is to be more cautious about what you put into the public sphere. Employers are aware the privacy is important, and they are aware that you can control what you put out to the world. It is your personal time to do what you want. Do we really want people to live every moment thinking that it could affect a future job? By posting something that could get you fired/not hired to a public space and then to get upset when people view it is immensely hypocritical. Unless the post is completely benign and the hiring manager is overreacting. Ok, why? This one I think needs some backup, because you just made a claim that every single employer things that every single employee needs to be professional 100% of the time. A teacher was fired from her job because there was a picture of her holding a beer at a family party. That still doesn't quite answer why internet persona's should be off-limits. By that logic, are you against interviews at all? Should people be hired solely based on merit? Wait, you go to interviews not knowing it will affect your job? If merit is how well you will do your job, yeah. And even if they don't pay enough, say they have 2 candidates. Both have the same credentials, and one is a person who is generally responsible, nice, and would be a nice addition to the workplace, and the other is not. Who do you pick? Is it wrong to use those factors at all? The more likely scenario is that you have 2 candidates and one is more qualified, but doesn't have the same personality as the hiring manager, so they go to the internet posts to find a reason to disqualify them. Do you like that scenario? Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
I can easily read a college level neuroscience book. The title is "Neuroscience For The Mental Health Clinician". Stupid people would be unable to to read it. I know what hydrocephelic intrecranial pressue is. I know that cannabis is the scientific name for marijuana. I know what a genetic anomaly is. I know what a serotoninin neurepinephren reuptake inhibitor is. Side: Yes, it is wrong.
2
points
Well in that case you're letting yourself down by making yourself look stupid when you're not. You might not be thick but you make yourself look like it if you speak like a common wannabe Ghetto dweller teenage boy, say ridiculous things contrary to common knowledge like "England is not a democracy", "there is no such thing as a constitutional monarchy" and make it seem like you are unable to accurately comprehend someone else's post and respond with it with something relevant. Side: No, it is not wrong.
2
points
1
point
3
points
If everyone has the same perception of you except you - there are two possibilities: that everyone else is wrong, and wrong in the same way; or, you have a somewhat skewed internal perception of yourself. If you are still struggling with what it means to make something public, you may not be a good judge of your own intelligence. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
1
point
2
points
No they don't. People have the right to do what they want as long as no one gets hurt. If my employer pulled this, I would not share my online activities bacause I have the right to do what I want. It is none of employer's business what people do onlline as long as no one gets hurt. The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful search and seizue against law abiding people. If my employer asked me about my online activities, I would refuse to answer. Privacy and freedom of speech are rights. Side: Yes, it is wrong.
1
point
You can't make something publicly available and claim it to be private at the same time. If I write something on a billboard, is no one allowed to read it? Put the shoe on the other foot - are you allowed to research someone you hire? If you are going to have a contractor come fix your house, would you be able to google them and see if anything turned up? Would you possibly check whether he has a violent criminal record? Whether he is licensed/bonded in your state, etc.? If he posts on his web page that is he actually just starting out in construction and doesn't really know what he is doing, but tells you that he has done it for years, is that relevant? Did you violate his privacy by accessing his publicly available facebook information? Side: No, it is not wrong.
2
points
2
points
The burden of proof lies with you here. He has provided evidence, your 'arguments' on this debate which clearly show poor debating skills. If you wish to disprove this, you must provide evidence of you debating properly. Because based on the evidence provided, you have never once debated properly. Side: No, it is not wrong.
2
points
…As I said, and please read it this time. "the burden of proof lies with you here. He has provided evidence, your 'arguments' on this debate which clearly show poor debating skills. If you wish to disprove this, you must provide evidence of you debating properly. Because based on the evidence provided, you have never once debated properly." I know you say you read through things, but I responded to the argument you just made in my previous comment. That shows that you aren't reading, or at the very least you are not trying to respond to arguments. This is further proof that you are a poor debater. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
Ok, prove that. So far, all the evidence presented has shown that you have never debated properly. If you wish to provide evidence that that statement is false, you must provide evidence of yourself debating properly. If you were to debate properly, that is what you would do. If you do not do this, you are simply proving our point. Side: No, it is not wrong.
here you go all the proof you could ever want http://www.createdebate.com/user/ Side: No, it is not wrong.
2
points
2
points
Ok, if nothing will change your mind, explain why. Why is the argument they just made illegitimate? If nothing will change your mind, you have to have a reason why each argument presented at you is illegitimate. That is how a debate works. It is fine to restate a claim, but you MUST back it up with new information, or at least respond to what was just said to you. Otherwise you are not debating. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
2
points
I believe if the person had made anything public, and by that I mean it's blatantly searchable to the public, then finding someones interests in fine. I would say it's almost similar to a library search for the book you want. If it's made public it's available for all to see. Side: No, it is not wrong.
Whatever we put out on Twitter, Facebook, etc etc are global and in the public domain so anyone from anywhere can access the info. A good reason why we should be conscious about what we put there about ourselves and what we "talk" about, our opinions, ideas, etc etc. Its all there for anyone else to read. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
Employers have done background checks for years. It would be silly for them to specifically exclude publicly available information from the person directly. It may reveal potential discrepancies from what they provide in their resume (e.g. they say they went to Stanford, but their facebook profile shows they went to a community college, etc.), can give a general perspective of personality of the candidate, etc. For jobs with a public profile, you would find things before the public does, etc. I don't think employers should 'stalk' potential employees, and I think they can go too far when they request usernames/passwords, etc. but reviewing the public info is acceptable and people should post accordingly. Side: No, it is not wrong.
1
point
As said already, what's made public by others is public to all. However I think the searches conducted by most employers involves hacking the employee's networking account, which in relation to freedom and privacy. But I think the reason the employer wants to go through this information takes precedence as it is essential that you know that you get what you are looking at, particularly since recruiting and employing is costly and time consuming. I'm sure most people would be outraged if you bought a TV that didn't work and had no a no returns policy. Side: No, it is not wrong.
|
