3 ms·
Look, I semi-agree in the abstract. It is difficult to prove in the individual case. In the aggregate, it's not impossible to prove, if still a bit hard - this
by edanm 8y ago
Look, I semi-agree in the abstract. It is difficult to prove in the individual case. In the aggregate, it's not impossible to prove, if still a bit hard - this is what economics/sociology research does, and a lot of governments have statistics/open access/FOIA/etc. So we can know how often these things happen.
Specifically to the things you list - again, I don't have statistics here, but based on my gut feeling - most of them barely affect anyone. Do you really think a large amount of people are barred entry into a country because they wrote something on Twitter? I'd imagine this almost never happens, at least today.
And btw, I kind of disagree with at least some of your items, like "were you passed for promotion because you're not good enough or because your employer found out through LinkedIn that you were looking for another job last year?". This is not what we were talking about, a case in which "Google" spies on you. This is your employer "spying" on you through your (supposedly public-enough) actions on social media. Changing the place you are looking for a job for from LinkedIn to "NewLinkedIn" won't make any difference for something like this, and is not the fault or responsibility of the company.
- blub 8y agoThe negative consequences will never affect most people, just those that have bad luck or have upset someone in power. Kinda like how only some journalists commit suicide by shooting themselves 5 times in the head in Russia. It's impossible for us to know what's happening, baring various leaks. Given the last decade my gut feeling is that if it's not happening, someone's at least thinking about how to implement it. Re LinkedIn: I didn't mean good old social network stalking. There's nothing stopping LinkedIn from offering this as a sevice to companies. They already allow recruiters and paying members more privileges.