Comments on: Wrong Lesson: Obama Warns Kids on Social Media

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:30:09 +0000

Dan, regarding “would be the kinds no one would want to work for in any case.”, that’s a very common way of dismissively trivializing the problem facing a job-seeker. May I remind you that we are currently in the midst of one of the harshest global recessions? Sometimes people have to work for jerk employers, in order to put food on the table and pay rent and get health insurance. Moreover, human resources departments are notorious for doing stupid things to evaluate candidates. While it is abstractly accurate to say they shouldn’t, they shouldn’t, they shouldn’t, the reality of the matter is THEY DO! Obama was absolutely correct when taken against the marketing of exhibitionism for the profit of the marketers and the potential grief of the exploited.

By: Dan Gillmor

Dan Gillmor — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:43:05 +0000

Jonah, my hope, over time, is that the kinds of employers who’d be scared off this way would be the kinds no one would want to work for in any case. We don’t disagree in any way about helping young people learn about editing, filtering and the like — in fact, those are critically important skills. My main point is the idiocy — and counter-productive outcome — of rating people based on long-ago stupidities.

By: Jonah Bloom

Jonah Bloom — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:20:27 +0000

When I am considering hiring a journalist, I definitely expect that they’ll have created interesting content somewhere out there on the web. In that respect, I think your advice is spot on. And I so hope that you’re right, that people will see youthful indiscretions for what they are and outspokenness as a sign that someone’s not scared to take a stand.

But I’m not sure you’re being realistic: Your digital record is going to conspire against you with certain potential employers, especially given the incredibly fierce competition for jobs today. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get out there and say what you’ve got to say anyway–maybe you wouldn’t want an employer who doesn’t like your views/creativity anyway–but it’s certainly worth thinking carefully about, which is all Obama really said.

Of course we want a world full of color, a world full of people not only free to speak but empowered to have their say by technology. Yet I’m not sure that it’s so bad that they also learn to edit, to filter, to consider what different types of people or audiences will think of their content. I’m not sure that’s being a drone, so much as being aware that actions have consequences and you’re not the only person in the world that matters.
No?

By: MN

MN — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:08:45 +0000

A President should indeed be careful about voicing concerns re: specific privacy policies of Facebook or Google etc. This would not be the President’s job. (Besides the ACLU and other civil society organisations have been doing a great job with their campaign to create at least *some* awareness among users). But I think in this case B.O. voiced a discrete warning and cllaed students to think twice (Shouldn’t we all think twice?!). The internet btw and social media and the rest *are not* sacred. But privacy and civil liberties *are*.

By: Greg N.

Greg N. — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:42:04 +0000

Excellent article Dan. I could do well to heed your advice.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:27:10 +0000

I shouldn’t do this, but …

1) Note the pattern – This-SHOULD-be-the-way-things-work. But it isn’t the way things are, so what then?
2) When social-media gurus write posts like this, they take no risk of their own. If someone gets hurt by following the guru’s advice, the guru has no downside. They don’t ever need to write a post to their audience “So-and-so took my advice, and it harmed their life, my advice was very wrong”. Instead, they can write how either the advice wasn’t really wrong, it was actually so-and-so’s own fault, or just ignore the counter-example entirely.
3) You might take into account that one of the moments of the recent presidential campaign that the same sort evangelists are extremely proud of, is arguably violating rules allowing politicians to speak a bit less guardedly, and feeding Obama’s offhand remark about bitterness and guns and religion to the right-wing noise machine. That was called “citizen journalism”. So he’s very familiar with negatives of the “gotcha” game.

By: Kim Z

Kim Z — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:34:22 +0000

This may hold true for a lot of jobs, but the presidency and other national security jobs will be slower to follow. Currently, to grant security clearance the investigating agency looks back at 10 (or more) years of a persons life. They interview people who knew the candidate. They ask detailed questions about the candidate’s activities.

Many argue that past behaviors don’t necessary reflect current activities (particularly when comparing college activities to “real” life); however, the idea behind the process is to try to determine the stability and trustworthiness of a person. This is highly subjective, so it is important to give the best impression to the investigator. (Not lie, but give the best honest depiction possible.)

Things on Facebook and blogs and Twitter and whereever are further evidence of one’s life that may even have a bigger impact than just the forms and interviews for at least 3 reasons:
1) “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Saying you smoked pot in college may not have as lasting an impact as pictures of bong hits or even just of looking very stoned. In a highly competitive marketplace these are images that you want burned into an investigators mind.
2) The information may not be balanced. Even the SF-86 form includes infomation for you achievements and other positive or at least neutral pieces of information. However, if you have a rant-oriented blog or a friend with a habit of only taking pictures when you are looking stupid, this again is creating a negative image that may be hard to overcome.
3) You may answer questions that were not asked. Much like witnesses on the stand are told to only answer what is asked, you don’t want to reveal potentially questionable acts/thoughts if you don’t have to. Even if you don’t do those things or feel that way any more the information will raise questions.

Even if nothing on the web actually violates a hiring rule, even for getting security clearance, those details may be enough to get another candidate chosen instead of you. That is why people should be concerned.

Granted, government hiring standards have been changing with the times. At one point, any drug use would have been a red flag, but that was hard to enforce after having presidents who were known to have used drugs. As a result, those with drug histories now need to chronicle their past habits and then sign a statement saying they won’t do it again. Still, it seems better to be safe than sorry. It is very difficult (some would say impossible) to adequately remove things from the Internet. Is the “lol” you’ll get from posting something outrageous worth the potential negative effect sometime in the future?

Sorry for the ramble, but as a data privacy advocate, this is something I lecture people about all the time.