3 ms·

The first rule of working for an organization: You are not the organization. This goes for your time, your resources, your accounts. People blur this line fo

The first rule of working for an organization: You are not the organization. This goes for your time, your resources, your accounts. People blur this line for various reasons. They're youthful and "motivated"/optimistic. They substitute the organization to lesser or greater extent for a personal life. The organization pressures them to co-opt their personal life in varying manners and degrees. If an organization wants an account, they should start one. If that's not within the terms of service of the provider, that's the organization's problem. If you work for an organization that continues to pressure you -- directly or indirectly -- to blur these lines, it's time to start planning for and heading for the exit. I used to think my "detached" colleagues were unmotivated. In some cases, perhaps; but in others, I've come to see they were perhaps simply wiser and/or more experienced. (Meaning, with the ones who otherwise demonstrated significant intelligence and ability.) When you work for someone else, it's your job. You may -- hopefully do -- greatly enjoy it. Nonetheless, don't forget to understand, demarcate, and respect its boundary -- and your own.

r00fus 15y ago
Work ethics aside, this situation poses a problem for LinkedIn, since the idea that a company can edit their employees' accounts or create fictitious people is counter to the whole idea of identity-based social networks (quite different than FB or G+ company pages). Ultimately this points to a problem for social networks, in that "your" page on a social network really isn't "owned" by you, it's just your dossier that you have some rights to edit/control, but is really the property of site/network that hosts it. This won't change unless regulation/legislation/legal precedent creates real legal protections. Given how much of our lives are "on the Internet" these days, Cyberethics [1] is a growing issue. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberethics
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  I'm suddenly put in mind of the "corporate personhood" debate that's picked up once again in the U.S., recently. Who is a "person", and what right or permission do or don't they have to be an account holder? As for your point, it's a reason I'm moving back to self-hosting. I've had enough of "share-cropping".

r00fus 15y ago

Work ethics aside, this situation poses a problem for LinkedIn, since the idea that a company can edit their employees' accounts or create fictitious people is counter to the whole idea of identity-based social networks (quite different than FB or G+ company pages). Ultimately this points to a problem for social networks, in that "your" page on a social network really isn't "owned" by you, it's just your dossier that you have some rights to edit/control, but is really the property of site/network that hosts it. This won't change unless regulation/legislation/legal precedent creates real legal protections. Given how much of our lives are "on the Internet" these days, Cyberethics [1] is a growing issue. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberethics

pasbesoin 15y ago
I'm suddenly put in mind of the "corporate personhood" debate that's picked up once again in the U.S., recently. Who is a "person", and what right or permission do or don't they have to be an account holder? As for your point, it's a reason I'm moving back to self-hosting. I've had enough of "share-cropping".