4 ms·

> If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. You might not even know --- and it

> If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. You might not even know --- and it could extend beyond hiring. Didn't get promoted? Maybe it's because someond keyword matched you for "toxic". The only real way to safeguard yourself is to keep your identity as small and bland as possible, and that's no way to live.

ardy42 7y ago
IIRC, aren't employers required to provide some notice of background checks, especially in the case where they're used to justify adverse actions?
- chroem- 7y ago
  It's usually a generic checkbox on the same order as the "We care about your privacy!" tracking notifications.
- seanmccann 7y ago
  You're absolutely right. Background checks for employment purposes are covered under FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and a myriad of other laws at various levels. Complying with these laws is not trivial, but the onus is on the employer to handle compliance if they are using data sources like this. I work at a background check startup that puts a focus on fairness and compliance.
- astura 7y ago
  Yes.
achillesheels 7y ago
Or become financially independent? That does not necessitate Uber riches just a healthy customer base that mutually feeds each other over time.
allovernow 7y ago
I agreed with you except for >that's no way to live. You know it's still well within the range of possibility to live a healthy, fully actualized life without a named online presence, right?
- quotemstr 7y ago
  > You know it's still well within the range of possibility to live a healthy, fully actualized life without a named online presence, right? It's possible, sure. But why should anyone have to hide like that? It's the principle of the thing: an ordinary person shouldn't fear for his livelihood just because he exercises his right to speak in public.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    If someone is posting publicly that women are intellectually inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work professional jobs, you think this should have no effect on their job? You think they are going to leave those beliefs at the door when they go to work? You think women who work for this person are going to be evaluated fairly? If someone does something in their personal life that shows they would be unable to do their job, it is entirely reasonable to have that affect their employment.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      First I'd want to be sure someone was actually "posting publicly that women are intellectually inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work professional jobs". Sometimes people post something completely different and it gets twisted into something like that that's obviously offensive but isn't what they said. In much the same way this report twists the meaning of every tweet.
    - wolco 7y ago
      So you want to force this person to work for themselves and be responsible for hiring. Maybe putting your company out of business and ensuring his viewpoint continues. I think you give the person a chance and use training if a problem exists.
lonelappde 7y ago
In the past, this was called "professionalism", and private lives were kept private.

ardy42 7y ago

IIRC, aren't employers required to provide some notice of background checks, especially in the case where they're used to justify adverse actions?

chroem- 7y ago
It's usually a generic checkbox on the same order as the "We care about your privacy!" tracking notifications.
seanmccann 7y ago
You're absolutely right. Background checks for employment purposes are covered under FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and a myriad of other laws at various levels. Complying with these laws is not trivial, but the onus is on the employer to handle compliance if they are using data sources like this. I work at a background check startup that puts a focus on fairness and compliance.
astura 7y ago
Yes.

achillesheels 7y ago

Or become financially independent? That does not necessitate Uber riches just a healthy customer base that mutually feeds each other over time.

allovernow 7y ago

I agreed with you except for >that's no way to live. You know it's still well within the range of possibility to live a healthy, fully actualized life without a named online presence, right?

quotemstr 7y ago
> You know it's still well within the range of possibility to live a healthy, fully actualized life without a named online presence, right? It's possible, sure. But why should anyone have to hide like that? It's the principle of the thing: an ordinary person shouldn't fear for his livelihood just because he exercises his right to speak in public.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  If someone is posting publicly that women are intellectually inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work professional jobs, you think this should have no effect on their job? You think they are going to leave those beliefs at the door when they go to work? You think women who work for this person are going to be evaluated fairly? If someone does something in their personal life that shows they would be unable to do their job, it is entirely reasonable to have that affect their employment.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    First I'd want to be sure someone was actually "posting publicly that women are intellectually inferior and shouldn't be allowed to work professional jobs". Sometimes people post something completely different and it gets twisted into something like that that's obviously offensive but isn't what they said. In much the same way this report twists the meaning of every tweet.
  - wolco 7y ago
    So you want to force this person to work for themselves and be responsible for hiring. Maybe putting your company out of business and ensuring his viewpoint continues. I think you give the person a chance and use training if a problem exists.

lonelappde 7y ago

In the past, this was called "professionalism", and private lives were kept private.