Brazen careerist
Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow
Email
Print
A young woman in college raised a topic of much debate on NPR this afternoon. She explained that her advisor told her she needed to take down all her pictures on Facebook that she wouldn't want an employer to see. She then complained about how she really didn't want to delete them. The consensus on the show seemed to be that no, you don't have to delete all your pictures, but employers don't have to hire you either.
Why are we still talking about whether potential employers are going to Google you or check out your Facebook profile? Why are we still talking about deleting Facebook photos at all? Whether they're going to check you out or not, you should protect your online identity as if they are. Which is why I'm not deleting all my "incriminating" Facebook photos or censoring my comments. I'm reading the privacy policies and protecting my account to make sure that only my friends can see my photos and details of my account.
Facebook is personal. It's the one social network where I keep in touch with family and friends across space and time. It's the one place I can talk about a messy family drama divorce; learn about my sister's engagement in Italy; commiserate with hungover friends; share and laugh at pictures of our recent beach trip. If I want to know about the intimate details of your life and want you to know about mine, then I'm gonna let you know: with a friend request. If not, don't worry, I might just connect with you somewhere else (email? LinkedIn? Twitter?).
Point being, it's personal. Why would you even let a casual observer such as a potential employer peruse your personal Facebook profile? That's like letting someone you barely know walk around your house uninvited. Put a lock on your front door (a.k.a. go set your profile information & search privacy settings)! Then you silly little college students don't have to get mad because you had to delete all your SBY2K10 photos.
Take what others advise with a grain of salt. Be your own advocate. Do your own research. BE SMART.
Sidenote: Facebook privacy aside, if you're an employer that won't hire a normal 20-something who goes out for drinks with their friends on the weekends or has pictures of themselves at a party, I probably don't want to work for you anyways. No hard feelings :)
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles,
subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
- A New Kind of Business Mover and Shaker
- The Anti-Stalker’s Guide for Converting Online Contact into Real World Collaboration
- How To Find a Writing Partner Who Can Help You Achieve Your Goals and Make More Money
- Continuing Education: Extending Learning Beyond Your Campus Years
- Why You Might Be Better Off Without a Job After College
Comments
03.01.10
Interesting post. I agree with it, but I have run into people/articles/blogs, etc that do in fact claim that ever making use of the privacy controls on Facebook is problematic. They argue that if you are set to total privacy or "friends only", potential employers are going to ask themselves,
"What is it they are trying to hide? Do we want to risk hiring somebody who can't even be open about their Facebook activities?"
Please realize I don't agree with this stance in the slightest. But I encounter it on career boards and advice columns quite often. Not to mention among friends who refuse to use their privacy settings for this very reasons. Plus, they de-tag themselves from my pictures, or delete my fun loving comments on their pages because, "If my boss saw I went to a Halloween party..." etc.
I was curious about your response to this. This "What are they hiding," thing.
03.01.10
I love this post; I too maintain FB as my one (lonely, only!) "personal" presence on social media. That said, I too took the steps to make sure my privacy there was protected; it shocks me to see how many people leave their homes, as you say, wide open on Facebook. I don't think that's wise personally, let alone professionally.
I tend to think there are still employers who won't hire you because they saw you guzzling beer from a supersize funnel on Facebook, and I can't say I entirely disagree with them: like all discrimination, it's a matter of perception. Would you take your boss seriously if you saw the same image? No: which is why protecting yourself, "being your own advocate" (to quote you) is so very important. Also, many employers are not as sophisticated as we are; they may not understand that you consider Facebook personal, but tweet lifestyle development advice on Twitter that's safe-for-work, etc. That's my guess, anyway.
Any employers who have done this want to chime in?
Thanks for sharing!
03.01.10
I think that we all have to remember we all have different goals and are at different points in our careers. You can look at facebook and what you post in the same way people look at people with tattoos being lawyers. I am not trying to be off color here, but people with tats can make good lawyers, but unless they are the best at their game they are never going to be working in a large LA law firm (before you flame me on that gigantic generalization -- it was said for effect -- to make a point)… unless your legal counsel for Harley Davidson.
The more you put out there things that could offend or make other co-workers feel uncomfortable or even give potential employers concerns about you tarnishing the corporate brand... you won't get the job. But you could always strike out on your own and travel the road less traveled. The more you want to "fit in" the more important a politically correct internet presence is.
In high school they said when you did what others wanted you where giving into peer pressure. In the business world it is called being a team player.
I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is the way it is. If you want, be a crusader and change the world. Good on you. Most crusaders die poor, but are remembered well. In two or three generations they may right books about you, but you will be unemployed or underemployed for now… but with purpose.
.thumbnail.jpg)
03.01.10
I like living honestly and out in the open, but then again, I'm not a 20something anymore. I don't censor myself on any of my blogs, particularly my personal blog about the going ons of my life (marriage, pregnancy, money...) or my Facebook profile either.
This is me, the good, the bad and everything in between. If a company wants to scrutinize one tiny sliver of my life without looking at the entire picture, then I don't want to associate myself with a company, as close-minded as that.
Nice post...thanks for sharing!
03.01.10
Ty - I find your point about employers not hiring someone simply because they keep their Facebook completely private to be completely frightening! If someone has the maximum setting of privacy - essentially only allowing non-friends to see their name and the networks they are part of - then their online space is no longer public. They were smart enough to keep their online space private, and that's that. It would be like employers trying to read your diary, or ask you questions about your personal life. If it doesn't affect your job, and if you're not offering it up publicly, then it shouldn't even be a question, in my opinion.
03.01.10
Karina, it is quite scary indeed! Of course no one thing applies to everyone, but I have started to encounter the notion that staying private, (or on the other end, letting it all hang out online without censorship) is bad for one's hiring prospects.
Andrea, that's a great attitude to have. I admire that.
As for Paul's point,I think to say that "that's just the way business is" represents a large generalization. We may be automatically thrown out of consideration by certain companies based on what we do on Facebook and the like, but I think the point here is that we wouldn't want to work for such companies anyway. The point is to find companies that would not do so, not to launch a crusade to get companies with that bad attitude to change. I could care less if that is the bad name for themselves they want. I just don't want to attach mine to it.
Staying true to who you are, or keeping that information private is not a recipe to end up poor, either. It's not a zero sum game; censor yourself OR fail. Apply to work for those who are going to respect your privacy, instead of giving it up in order to impress a company that does not. We are not talking getting into a high school club. We are talking about jobs/careers here.
03.02.10
@ty ... my point is not so much "censor yourself OR fail" but don't be surprised that not employers and more to the point hiring managers decide things in ways that are rarely fair and justified or even legal if the real reasons they really picked one candidate over another came to light.
What I have noticed over the years, when I have been in a position to hire, I have done better to hire who I and my team get along with. On a 10 point scale of hard skills (what I am actually hiring someone for) anything over a 6 will do. Now it comes down to everything I can’t legally hire, fire or not hire a candidate over. Will I want to be around you for 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week. If anything I find out during my due diligence leads me to a question not an answer (like a completely private facebook account), I just say next candidate please…. I don’t think this one would be a good fit. Especially in today’s job market.
03.02.10
That's fine if that is the way you want to be. It's your funeral, like I said before. But you seem to declare that it is "today's job market" that forces this to happen, and not your own personal hiring preferences. Yet it very clearly is a matter of managerial preference.
Nothing about the way the market works forces you or anyone else to conclude that someone with a private Facebook account must be a disagreeable person to work with. That is a judgment call that you have made.
Now you have every right to make that judgment call, but it's certainly not in line with the sort of company I would want to work for. But the beauty is, nobody is forcing me to apply to such a company. Thankfully, there are people out there in the business world who would agree with me as well as you, and those are the ones I am looking for.
Put another way, I don't take exception to the methods you use to choose your employees, though I heartily disagree with them. I take exception to your insistence that it must be that way in order for a company, or indeed the entire current free market economy, to thrive.
03.02.10
Interesting comments, Paul... I have a question for you (as someone who has done hiring in the past and obviously considered this question). What if someone is totally public in all aspects BUT Facebook (or MySpace or something similar) - and what is public, is good - does that change your view of their private FB status?
I mention it because that's sort of what the blog post originally suggests: advocating for yourself, keeping personal and work life separate, etc. That's kind of my attitude: since I spend so much darn time online, I need at least one online place where I can be totally myself.
On the flip side, like Andrea, I like to be fairly open - and there's nothing in my FB anymore that's offensive. I don't party or otherwise embarrass myself in public; but I'm kind of a modest person, anyway. Yet I still like to vent there, share my feelings with a close group of friends (I keep it to 60ish people I actually talk to and try not to invite folks on who are not my friends in "real" life), and I try not to friend coworkers unless we are friends outside the workplace. Why? It's just inappropriate to me, I guess. In that respect I agree with you Paul: err on the side of caution in all your choices. Yet to me erring on the side of caution in the social media realm means private, close-knit FB and wide-open public professional me elsewhere. It's fascinating that the perspectives on this are SO strong and SO different! I hope others chime in!
And remember, too - FB was not always about a professional or public image. There was a time you needed a college email address to join; isn't that right?
To add more to the mix, I was just talking to my boss about this, too. He is 40something; most of his company hires are 35 and under. He Googled all of us, and yet he thought we were smart to keep our FBs private. His is private as well. So I am very much interested in the employer perspective.
And while I have tattoos, like so many other 20somethings these days, I suppose (nothing public, offensive, glaring or distracting, and most covered under normal work garments - a very intentional choice) I agree with you: future lawyers, doctors, etc. still need to beware; I suspect it will take at least a generation of all us tattooed youngsters (I say that only partly in jest) to change that. ;-) And then it will go out of fashion again, like all other things 20somethings at some point feel the need to do; still, those entering a conservative field of work must consider ALL personal choices, from visible tattoos to purple hair, Facebook accounts, and so forth. It is interesting however, and I like the fact that on Brazen, many of us are both employers and employees - so we can offer a unique perspective normally never discussed except among friends who may not have the range of experience necessary to give any real insight other than, "I wish my boss didn't see that FB picture," etc.
03.02.10
@ty When I speak I only can speak from my perspective, not in absolutes. But I will say for every action there is a complete and counter reaction. In the balance of life there is always zero sum gain... your born alone and you will die alone everything else is just plus and minus along the way... it is all about how your remembered. (OK I will get off my soap box now LOL)
I just stated what I did as a hiring manager. I am a 40ty something and left management just over 2 years ago and vow never to return. Hiring and managing 'Productivity' is no cake walk.
@Lindsey I think you need to walk in the mind of a hiring manager. Most perspective employees think about skill sets, ability to do the job better than anyone else. For some seasoned managers, skill set has little to do with the recruitment process. Retention is the biggest concern. There are the hard costs of recruitment (head hunter fees), but the soft costs are HUGE in the way of group output/productivity. You need to step away from the individual and look at the team that the candidate will become part of. (I come from the world of medium to big if not really big business so my math flows from that perspective).
I will give you a hypothetical story based on some real world experiences I have had.
In this scenario I am a supervising manager, meaning I am supervising a supervisor who runs a group of 8 people including herself. This group is expected to produce 10 units of work per month or 30ty per quarter to receive their bonuses. This metric of work units is arbitrary for this example.
10 work units translate to 66% efficiency. Every person in the group can reasonably produce 2 units of work per month if they are in the office 100% of the time. The supervisor splits their time from management and work so they are expected at 100% attendance produce 1 unit of work per month.
Everyone, for the sake of simple math gets 4 weeks vacation, 3 weeks of training and 1 week of sick leave per year. Plus long weekends and the Christmas break. This reduces working time by 3 man months per year per employee or 25%. So the group now at 100% efficiency can produce 33.75 work units per quarter or 135 units per year.
So if they all work 40 hours a week and we have a group of star employees that work at a 80% productivity level (no one works at 100% productivity – you take breaks, use the washroom chit chat, go to meetings, etc). 80% productivity means the group produces (without overtime) 9 work units per month (33.75 * .80 / 3 = 9). To make up the shortfall of 1 unit of work the group per month the group needs to put in (1 / 9) 11% overtime or about 4.5 hours per week each. This is the time management math of a perfect world.
Now you loose an employee and need to hire someone new. To keep the math simple, the exit was gracious and there was enough notice given so when the old one leaves on the Friday and the new one arrives on the Monday. Head count stays flat.
You have a new employee who starts and hits the ground running at 50% the productivity of a seasoned team member. It is assumed that it will be 6 months before they are as good as everyone else. So this team member will only produce 1 unit of work per month instead of 2 and create a short fall of 3 units of work per quarter. The supervisor’s productivity also drops due to the need for more supervision of the new employee for another short fall of .25 units of work per month or another .75 units per quarter. Each remaining person in the group (5 of them) productivity drops by 5% helping the newbie out with their questions (5% x 5 = 25% of one person equivalent or another) .5 units of work per month or 1.5 units per quarter. The action of hiring a new person at least for the first quarter they are around creates a short fall of 5.35 units of work per quarter or 1.78 work units per month. This translates into another (1.79 / 9) 19% overtime for the team which equates to 7.6 hours per week each… if they want to meet their management objectives and get a bonus (at this company your bonus represented 30% of your annual income).
So now you have the entire background … for the management dilemma that comes with making a ‘BAD HIRE’. As a manager I am bonused on ALL my groups making their numbers, this was just 1 of 3. If everything goes smoothly everyone in the group needs to work 30% overtime up from 11% because someone left the group and was replaced.
Now the story really begins: I allowed my supervisor to hire a newbie that on face value looked like everyone else in the group, early 30tys, married, 1.5 kids, and lived in the suburbs. What set her apart in my subordinate supervisors mind was she was really gifted at the work. She could really be a technical stand out. What stood out in my mind as a reason not to hire her was she was a stickler about people being on time. This stood out for me as a problem because the group (including the supervisor) was on average 15 minutes late for everything, but worked the full day. If they came in 15 – 20 minutes late they stayed at least 45 – 60 minutes late everyday anyway to get the work done. So I did not care. I chalked this up to that work group’s culture. After having my interview with her accompanied by the supervisor I recommended against her hire but left it to my supervisor’s discretion, it was after all the supervisor’s team and her direct report (MISTAKE!).
When this merit hire started the devastation was almost immediate. She started knitting on the other team members for coming in late right out of the gate. She unfortunately had a stronger personality than most of the team members so her will was becoming dominant. Team mates did not want to help learn her job and they spent notably less time working in general and more time gossiping about how much the newbie had to learn; but no one was willing to teach her the ropes. Technically other than pissing people off she was doing nothing wrong. She just was not fitting in. She did not make it through her probationary period; I stepped in and axed her. As a result we blew our numbers for the quarter and subsequently the remainder of the year. No one including myself got bonused because of that bad decision (on my part).
SO… how does this tie into having full privacy on Facebook…. Before I left management, for a good 5 years, I hired on one principal alone: how my team would work with a perspective candidate. There are so many questions as a hiring manager I cannot ask a candidate in an interview, but I can ask the all knowing Google. If I have 3 candidates in front of me, I hire the one I feel most comfortable with and I feel I will stay the most comfortable with long term. Yes I was only one manager, but in my pear group of 2nd tier management I was not the only one hiring this way. Yes some mangers hired on merit alone, but they where the younger ones.
03.02.10
The way I've always seen it, with the number of people applying to any given job in any given company, Hiring Managers have to do something to whittle down the field of candidates, and if a Google Search brings up anything unusual or even remotely suspect, it's just easier to toss your resume and move on to any of the dozens of other qualified candidates.
Schawbel had a post a week or two ago saying something like 85% of hiring managers look up candidates online, and that 44% of candidates are rejected outright based on what's found on them. It doesn't have to be rational, wise, or in any way reflective of how you'll perform as an employee, if you get tossed you get tossed.
The argument of "if that's their attitude I don't want to work there" is all well and good, but you have to be willing to accept the consequence that you could be spending far longer looking for a job than you need to be, and any debt or inconvenience incurred because of that is on you.
03.02.10
I suppose that would be the case for any debt incurred by someone who is not getting hired because they are openly gay? Jewish? Black? You can't prove when that happens either, but it doesn't mean that one's hands should be thrown up at the notion of it happening, saying, "That's the way it is," either.
03.02.10
I’d like to throw one more thing into the mix…
As a 40-something, I have largely tuned out this online reputation stuff because I’m long past college age. Although I’m on a number of social media sites, I try to use discretion and professionalism when posting (would my mom or dad be comfortable w/ what I’m saying? If so, probably ok.) I haven’t given too much thought to what hiring managers could find about me.
Man, have I been WRONG! It’s so NOT just about the standard risqué-photos-posted-on-Facebook any more! Sure, you can lock down your Facebook profile, but, frankly, the whole discussion around risqué photos/videos on social media sites barely scratches the surface!
There’s a lot more out there that hiring managers check, according to a survey on online reputation and the job search done for Microsoft’s 4th Annual Privacy Day back in January. (http://www.microsoft.com/privacy/dpd/research.aspx -- see link to PDF on that page) According to the survey, while 70% of the U.S. recruiters/hiring mgrs say they've disqualified candidates based on online reputation, a mere 7% of U.S. consumers surveyed think their online reputation affects their job search. (Apparently, I’m not the only one with a disconnect!)
The survey revealed that sites checked on include not only the standard social media sites (FB, YouTube, Flickr, etc.) or even your blog and comments on other blogs, but online forums, online gaming sites (!), EBay, Craigslist – even Amazon! (So a book review or a wish list could lose someone an interview??)
Worse, you can control your own information – but still get disqualified from the running. Why? Because of something something YOUR RELATIVE or YOUR CO-WORKER says or does! (43% and 40%, respectively, of those HR folks surveyed would disqualify you for those reasons.) How do you control what family, friends and colleagues say about you? How many degrees of separation must you have before someone else’s behavior doesn’t reflect negatively on you?
Finally, there are certain questions that are ILLEGAL for an employer to ask you during an interview, e.g. your age. Online searching removes that barrier. Here is a direct quote (p.20) from the survey:
Now, recruiters can easily and anonymously collect information that they would not be permitted to ask in an interview, and the survey found that recruiters are doing just that." (!)
So there’s a lot of gray here. Where do we draw the line between upholding the law (EEOC), the company’s right to maintain its reputation, and our right to privacy?
03.02.10
Well, I put little stock in such surveys as a whole. It's just a survey and it does happen to be associated with a company that offer solutions to online privacy issues. Plus it is just one survey. You know what Twain said about statistics, after all.
That set aside, laws should of course always be enforced, and if managers are found guilty of violating them, they ought to be punished. Privacy would be even more important to me.
As to the "right" of a company to uphold it's reputation, I don't think think anybody is obligated to help them do it. Their reputation is like their product. They don't have the "right" to produce the best widgets out there. They either do or they do not. The same is true with upholding a reputation. And there should be limits to them doing so, all of which have been discussed in this thread.
I do however, think we may be getting somewhat paranoid in all of this. I personally think that these practices simply cannot be as ubiquitous as some fear or assert. If it were, we would all be living in a very different world than we are now. Big mega corporations probably do this, but let's not apply super corporate culture to the entire expanse of the free market economy.I just don't think that the average exhausted manager of the Walden Books in Fargo is going to scour the net looking for how open you are on Facebook before hiring you as an assistant manager. They are going to see who can get the load off of their back quickest during the holiday season and such. That is who they will hire.
Still, if you are worried about these privacy invasions,don't lay down for it. Work somewhere else, or come prepared. How would a hiring manager feel if I came to an interview and said, "You know, I traced your ISP back to an Alcoholics Anonymous message board on which you post. Just to make sure my reputation is not sullied by working for someone with a drinking problem. I'm sure you understand."
No they wouldn't. They would show you the door PDQ as rightly so. And you should show such people the door when applying for jobs. Remember you are hiring them as much as they are hiring you. You don't have to take every scrap you can find. So do your homework to. Not on Facebook, but about the company. If you have even an inkling from an inside source or something that a company you are looking into does invade the off site privacy of its employees, run, fast.
Just because it is allegedly a "common" practice doesn't mean it should be accepted. Believe you are too good for that, and that you don't have to starve to stand up for your privacy. You'll find a job worth having with people worth spending time with.
03.02.10
Well, I put little stock in such surveys as a whole. It's just a survey and it does happen to be associated with a company that offer solutions to online privacy issues. Plus it is just one survey. You know what Twain said about statistics, after all.
That set aside, laws should of course always be enforced, and if managers are found guilty of violating them, they ought to be punished. Privacy would be even more important to me.
As to the "right" of a company to uphold it's reputation, I don't think think anybody is obligated to help them do it. Their reputation is like their product. They don't have the "right" to produce the best widgets out there. They either do or they do not. The same is true with upholding a reputation. And there should be limits to them doing so, all of which have been discussed in this thread.
I do however, think we may be getting somewhat paranoid in all of this. I personally think that these practices simply cannot be as ubiquitous as some fear or assert. If it were, we would all be living in a very different world than we are now. Big mega corporations probably do this, but let's not apply super corporate culture to the entire expanse of the free market economy.I just don't think that the average exhausted manager of the Walden Books in Fargo is going to scour the net looking for how open you are on Facebook before hiring you as an assistant manager. They are going to see who can get the load off of their back quickest during the holiday season and such. That is who they will hire.
Still, if you are worried about these privacy invasions,don't lay down for it. Work somewhere else, or come prepared. How would a hiring manager feel if I came to an interview and said, "You know, I traced your ISP back to an Alcoholics Anonymous message board on which you post. Just to make sure my reputation is not sullied by working for someone with a drinking problem. I'm sure you understand."
No they wouldn't. They would show you the door PDQ as rightly so. And you should show such people the door when applying for jobs. Remember you are hiring them as much as they are hiring you. You don't have to take every scrap you can find. So do your homework to. Not on Facebook, but about the company. If you have even an inkling from an inside source or something that a company you are looking into does invade the off site privacy of its employees, run, fast.
Just because it is allegedly a "common" practice doesn't mean it should be accepted. Believe you are too good for that, and that you don't have to starve to stand up for your privacy. You'll find a job worth having with people worth spending time with.
03.02.10
I don't know why that showed up twice. I apologize. (?)
03.02.10
I want to point out quickly, before I respond to the rest of the comments, a point about how "private" FB accounts look to "employers" or anyone else that may come across your privatized Facebook account.
As far as Facebook is concerned, you HAVE TO be logged in to a Facebook account to see more than a name/location/school/employer/profile pic AT ALL. Even when someone is logged into their own Facebook account, a VERY VERY large majority of all Facebook accounts are still completely private.
I'm in the business (for work) of tracing (aka tracking) complete strangers and have searched THOUSANDS of profiles on Facebook by email addresses and never, not even once, came across a "public" profile. This means that everyone is pretty much in the same boat.
When I was in the position of search for these people, I didn't think to myself, "Hmm this person has a private profile. They must be hiding something" at all, because then I would have thought that everyone was hiding something. However, when I did search for someone and they didn't show up at all, the only thing that came to mind was "Oh, they must be over 30 or don't have an online presence at all".
On the other hand, anyone can see your profile picture. Really, ANYONE with a Facebook account can see it. So yes if an employer searches for you and finds your profile picture (which they will), it better not be anything you'd be embarrassed for them to see, because like everyone else here has said, they WILL judge you on that regardless of who you "really are".
[And if anyone here is looking for more debaters on this topic, there's 10 more comments on my blog at http://carleemallard.com]
03.02.10
My point about private accounts is if I have two candidates one with a private account providing me no information and one with an open (or at least more open) account. The person who is answering my online query gets the points both negative and positive.
That being said, if I don't get my questions answered (no matter how illegal some may think they are) the resume gets tossed in the pass category. 400,000,000 people are now on face book. Not one person I currently work with is not on Facebook. 2 years ago it was not as blanket a statement but I would never error on the side of risk when hiring someone. If I could not find you online it was a strike against not for a prospective candidate... especially for a junior position to be held by a 20ty something.
I wanted to know what I wanted to know... like I said, it's not legal but those are laws not easily enforced. All I had to provide to HR was three short listed candidates, why I hired one over the other two. I did easily pick two other people out of the 50ty or so resumes to be my negative candidates without ever having to say why I pitched the other 50ty or so resumes.
05.24.10
Thanks for the info. I am going to set my privacy settings so that only my friends can see my photos. how to get pregnant reverse phone lookup
07.12.10
don't get all in your head and do all that it good for you and those you support enough,and be happy
07.12.10
Doesn't it seem like lately Facebook has been kind of buggy and unreliable though-- with security failures and accidental exposing of information that was supposed to be kept private? I don't know that you can really trust that anything that is on Facebook is really completely and permanently safe and private, no matter what settings you choose. They're still floating around on the internet, and accessible to your friends, who could always turn against you and distribute them, as scary as that sounds. The site is also hosted by a company that is known for making money by giving out user information to other companies.
I think that claiming that your pictures and information are private because you chose that setting for them, but leaving them on FB at all is kind of like locking your door and then putting the key under the mat. I personally do not trust FB to keep any of my information from anyone, which is why I am not on it.
07.12.10
Great advice, Carlee. I'm late on the discussion so got nothing more to add. I'd just like to mention that if I keep my FB account private it's because I don't want to disclose my personal data to everybody on the Internet. It's unnerving to hear that recruiters can hold this against potential candidates.
In any case, in my knowledge, recruiters hardly ever have the time to read your cover letter, so forget about your FB account and online presence!
07.12.10
Privacy doesn't exist anymore. If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to edit what content you put online about yourself.
Now, identity theft really does happen. But I don't think facebook photos will increase likelihood of that. Unless your pics are close up shots of your credit cards and birth certificate.
07.14.10
@Elizabeth: I like your attitude. Sure identity theft happens but not from Facebook. If you're worried about that you should be protecting your credit cards and SS card. Of course we all have some private aspects of our lives, but I've resorted in the past few months to just putting absolutely nothing online that I wouldn't mind anyone seeing. But I still put a lot of personal information about myself online... we can't live paranoid that "people are going to know who I really am!!!"
@Gauri: You're absolutely right -- The percentage of employers and academic admissions officers that actually take your FB profile into consideration is still a very SMALL NUMBER. It's just better to play it safe than sorry. If they do a google search on you they're gonna look at the first few things that pop up -- so just make sure FB isn't one of them unless that's what you want to represent who you are :)
@Molly: You sound terribly paranoid, so it's probably you're not on Facebook at all. And if you're not on Facebook at all then you have no reason to be worried about your data leaking. For the rest of us, I don't think we're that paranoid about life. Life happens.
07.14.10
I love that this discussion is still going on! I try to do as you do these days, and avoid anything that I am genuinely embarrassed about online - regardless of privacy settings. In reality, the worst thing you'll find on my Facebook page is rude language and the occasional off-color joke from a friend - in other words, nothing you don't hear about at the water cooler. The whole fracas has actually made me feel more calm about my privacy in general.
07.14.10
I don't think I'm especially paranoid. It isn't that I think everyone is out to steal my sweet, sweet data either. I guess I'd call myself 'cautious'.
I don't think there's anything strange about avoiding a website that has had massive issues with its privacy policy and that owns anything you post on it forever and ever and is really difficult to leave because it won't let you really delete your account.
Also, lots of people aren't on Facebook. It doesn't mean we're wackos. It just means we don't like Facebook. And I think our numbers are growing. The most popular post on my blog for the last 18 months has been the one about why I left facebook.
Got Something To Say?
Got Something To Say?
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.
Login to view your networks!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
