3 ms·
That's a false equivalence. You're talking about a business relationship versus an intimate personal relationship context.
by pmiller2 6y ago
That's a false equivalence. You're talking about a business relationship versus an intimate personal relationship context.
- travisjungroth 6y agoMy point is that just having the profile is data. He can’t predict what impact making this data public will have.
- pmiller2 6y agoCompanies that are worth a shit don't retaliate against people for looking at other opportunities. That's precisely why your Tinder example is not just off base, it's wrong. Another way to look at it: either you're a replaceable cog, or you're essential to running the business. If you're essential, they're going to do whatever they can to keep you. If you're replaceable, they probably don't care that much whether you in particular stay or go, but it will certainly cost money to replace you, which they'd rather avoid spending. Only a completely irrational company would cut someone loose just because an online profile with that person's name on it appeared somewhere.
- cameronbrown 6y agoIt's additional risk that nobody asked for.
- barbecue_sauce 6y agoVery few companies are worth a shit.
- tfehring 6y agoBeing fired because you're perceived to be looking for other jobs probably isn't a realistic concern. But being passed up for promotions or missing out on desirable opportunities because you're perceived to be looking for other jobs is a very real possibility, even if you're not easily replaceable. The Tinder analogy is imperfect because of that, but it's still a good illustration of how just the existence of a profile can destroy your plausible deniability.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Being fired because you're perceived to be looking for other jobs probably isn't a realistic concern. It definitely is.
- Nexxxeh 6y agoIf I had to lay off one of two employees in a role, both do the role fine, but I strongly suspect one of the two has been looking to leave... Which of the two am I keeping?
- withdavidli 6y agoThe type of relationship is different, but the example still holds. Having a profile at all can and likely will be viewed as an indicator of intention to leave the current relationship for a new relationship. This was how it was viewed having a resume profile on sites like Monster and CareerBuilder before LinkedIn made it the norm to have a public resume. Time frame is also very important. Example, a user has been with the company for over a decade, but the product has only been around for a few years. Or if one of the "achievements" was a test that was added recently.
- pmiller2 6y agoI have a TripleByte profile. Am I job hunting? This is not a hypothetical. I really do have a profile.
- reitzensteinm 6y agoNot necessarily. But what if you didn't have one yesterday, but you do have one today? What if you have only worked for one employer since TripleByte was founded (2015)? What if the only place you've worked is a startup of which you're a cofounder? If you can't think of a way in which a privacy leak can have consequences, that doesn't mean there aren't any.
- pmiller2 6y agoWhat if I have? How does that imply anything other than that I took a test?
- seebs 6y agoIn the sense of a logical implication which follows with full logical necessity: it doesn't. In the sense of a likely reason for someone to draw an inference: Most people do not specifically seek out excuses to take tests, and do so only because they want something that the test provides them with, such as access to a job-hunting platform. Most people who want access to a job-hunting platform want it because they are job-hunting or plan to be soon.
- ori_b 6y agoYou're right -- most people's livelihoods don't depend on staying together with their girlfriend.