3 ms·
The issue is the false positive/false negative rate and a lack of data in general. Without any measure of how 'good' the info gained via social media is, the da
by Balgair 9y ago
The issue is the false positive/false negative rate and a lack of data in general. Without any measure of how 'good' the info gained via social media is, the data is essentially useless. For large companies like Walmart, they can garner this data and see if it correlates at all. Google used to use GPA in their hiring decisions, but dropped it as it did not correlate to how good an employee is.
For example: drug use. Many people use drugs, but what is the difference between them? Is one type of drug a 'good' drug, like caffeine or nicotine? Burning Man attendees may be good employees and may micro-dose with LSD while at work. Does this make them a good hire? Again, the issue is that there just isn't enough data to properly correlate.
- crowbahr 9y agoYes but if you post pictures of yourself holding up signs at a KKK rally then a company hiring you is a PR liability for them if the could've checked and didn't.
- Balgair 9y agoYes, but you've said nothing about the cost-profit ratio about a hypothetical horrible racist. Even discounting the cost of the negative PR, do they still make more for you than otherwise? Is horrible racism something that your company cares about other than the money? Maybe having them work for you is a better thing than them not working at all? Social media can be very 'noisy' and should be one of a number of factors that are used in decisions.