17 ms·

I hereby resign

• jakejake 15y ago
  Next thing you know they'll be asking for our 4chan passwords.
  • re_todd 15y ago
    You just made me shit my pants!
• endianswap 15y ago
  Even though the content of the letter wasn't anything new (the same thing we've been reading about frequently on HN and other tech sites in the last couple of weeks) I found that it was well written (and chilling!) to the point where if I needed to explain to someone why it is so bad for employers to request Facebook access, this is the page I would send them to. Great read, thanks for taking the time to write it :)
  • unimpressive 15y ago
    As the first person to upvote, I started writing this comment, then realized I had nothing to say beyond "The best post I've read on the subject. That it's a letter of resignation is a bonus.". You sir get a hat tip from me for writing the comment I wanted to write but couldn't articulate. Bravo.
• grandalf 15y ago
  I'm going to create my own employment law honeypot Facebook account today!
  • samstave 15y ago
    I am a gay fundie transgender black jewish pregnant woman with narcolepsy who has beat cancer, here is my FB passwd.
    • JohnHaugeland 15y ago
      Sorry, we don't hire people who wear blue belts. Best of luck to you.
    • orenmazor 15y ago
      I'm adding this to my about me on facebook now. thanks for the copy!
    • EwanG 15y ago
      You don't even have to go to that extent. For the longest time my Klout profile claimed I was a 45 year old woman who lived in California because it misread a couple of my initial Facebook and Twitter posts. For the record I'm a male who currently resides in Texas...
    • mark_integerdsv 15y ago
      Are you insinuatIng that only black people can suffer from beat cancer? As a white boy who has the funk, I take exception to that as I have lost a friend to beat cancer and let me tell you: it ain't no joke. Watching your homie lose his beat step by step is a terrible thing and it leaves you with the worst feeling that maybe... just maybe, the rhythm really is going to get you.
      • samstave 15y ago
        Gloria Estefan tried to raise awareness to beat cancer with that famous charity song as well!
• bconway 15y ago
  For anyone curious what this is in reference to, it's the news from a couple weeks ago regarding potential employers asking for Facebook logins as a part of interviews: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-20/job-applicants-facebook/53665606/1 http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-03-20/job-appli...
• jbrichter 15y ago
  I find it infuriating that his argument against facebook spying isn't "this is wrong", but "we will have to hire dead weight, and could be exposed to legal liability." I of course don't mean to criticize the author personally; it's just sad how far culture has slid that this is the go-to argument.
  • fishtoaster 15y ago
    Well, to be fair, I think the author is trying to provide newer arguments, as the "this is stupid, a huge invasion of privacy, and against Facebook's TOS" cases have already been made pretty heavily on the front page of Hacker News. Further, if it's not plainly obvious that the practice is wrong to someone, it seems like stating the fact probably won't do much to convince them, so maybe alternative arguments might be more productive.
  • raganwald 15y ago
    Speaking as the author, this is not my go-to argument, nor do I suggest it be anyone’s go-to argument. I assure you that in “real life,” I would never agree to such an edict. But it’s like this: I felt that this particular argument hasn’t received much notice, and I thought people would find it interesting to think about.
    • mikeash 15y ago
      It certainly got me interested. After reading your post, I find myself wondering why any employer would tolerate the potential liability.
    • jbrichter 15y ago
      Well, at least I'm not the only one who took your post literally. The argument is interesting. I feel like the reason it's overlooked might be a realization that once you have to make such an argument, all is lost, evil has won, everything decent will come to an end, &c.
      • jaylevitt 15y ago
• meaydinli 15y ago
  I don't have a facebook account. I used to, but stopped using it about 4 years ago. I am looking forward to the day someone asks me that question. I wonder what their reaction is going to be. Possible scenarios: - They will believe me, drop the subject. - They will ask to see my twitter/linkedin/etc. account instead. - They will think that I am lying and stop the interview process, which is the most dangerous one.
  • vaksel 15y ago
    100% it'll be the later...it's expected that you have a facebook account..if you don't they'll just think you are lying...and it must be REALLY bad for you to lie about it...you are probably a drug user, or worse
    • stray 15y ago
      I really don't have a facebook account (we children of the cold war are sometimes a bit wary of any system that looks too much like a KGB wet dream). Or twitter. And on reddit I remove all my messages and delete my accounts whenever I pass 3000 karma.
    • Tangurena 15y ago
      > or worse Well, I'm running for election this November, so I suppose I could show them my campaign site.
    • jschuur 15y ago
      Then that's a sign that the company doesn't understand the kind of anti-Facebook backlash that's come up in recent years. What else about the realities of today's world might they not grasp? Every job interview is just as much an opportunity for you to get to know a prospective employer as vice versa.
• oskarth 15y ago
  Is this a common thing in US? I can't think of any good reason for an employer to get access to a prospective employees account. Sounds like the equivalent of asking to access a person's home to make sure it is well kept and that they have good taste.
  • unimpressive 15y ago
    It's slowly becoming one. I suspect this will stop the moment someone sues. Because I have total confidence that person will win. EDIT: Let me go ahead and put emphasis on "slowly". As waterlesscloud points out, right now it's very uncommon. The only reason it's on the agenda at all is because there's been headlines about insane employers asking to see employees Facebook profiles.
    • revscat 15y ago
      What is infuriating is that there is no political will to put a legal stop to this practice. I suspect that this means that as businesses learn how to alleviate the OP's concerns that they will do it more and more as time goes on, until it becomes the new normal. Libertarianism being the dominant political philosophy of the moment such encroachments seem inevitable.
      • orangecat 15y ago
        Libertarianism being the dominant political philosophy of the moment I fail to understand how one could look at the events of the last decade and determine that the major problems are that people have too much freedom and government has too little power.
        • prodigal_erik 15y ago
          When unemployment skyrockets and employers may begin colluding to wield all the indirect coercion they like, because threatening homelessness and possibly starvation is somehow more ethical than threatening violence, that's a libertarian policy towards non-state power.
• vaksel 15y ago
  why do employers expect access to your facebook? do they expect access to your email account? no...because that'd be invasion of privacy...so why is facebook different? you are free to snoop on the public facebook page(even though thats not 100% ethical either, since you should be judging people for the way they perform at work)...but in no way should you even think of asking about getting access to private information
  • minsight 15y ago
    There are many employers who feel that they're entitled to your salary history. Some see this as a sensible request, but it always struck me as a spectacular invasion of privacy.
    • logic 15y ago
      They feel they're entitled to ask for your salary history, which is a subtle, bur very real, distinction. (Much like some employers feel they're entitled to rummage through your Facebook account, apparently.) By the same token, you should feel entitled to tell them your prior salary data is a personal matter, if you're uncomfortable sharing it during salary negotiations.
    • billybob 15y ago
      If a company asks for salary history, I tell them its irrelevant because I've learned a lot since my last negotiation (which is always true).
    • michaelochurch 15y ago
      There are many employers who feel that they're entitled to your salary history. Ooh, lesson time! First, never give in on this one, unless compensation is relevant to your story (it's why you're leaving). It's best to say, "I believe that I was fairly compensated for the work I was doing, and I also believe I'm capable of doing more." It's a non-answer. You want to bring the discussion back to what you can do, not what you cost. Let them figure that out and give the first number. Leave the "salary" field on a job application blank. If they like you, they're not going to care. Why do companies ask for this information? It doesn't have much of an influence on what they'll pay you. It might swing their number by 10 or 15 percent at most. Mainly, they want you to scout against the competition for them. The information you are volunteering has nothing to do with you but it's extremely valuable for their HR departments. Moreover, that practice has to do with executives and the way they're compensated. Executives usually get severance packages baked in to the employment contract, but when companies fire people, they want to see if there's a way to get rid of them without paying these packages. Usually, any falsification in the job application process is cause to strike a package. So before a company is going to write a 3-year severance check, they want to do their research and see if they have leverage to negotiate it down or away. You know those stories that you hear about where an executive is fired for falsifying a college degree, even if it was on some technicality like a $35 library fine that blocked his graduation (and that he had completely forgot about, 20 years later)? Those are cases where the company had already decided to fire him, and started to scout around to see if it could do so more cheaply. Depending on the structure of the arrangement, they either (a) struck the severance on account of what they found, or (b) threatened to disclose it if the employee didn't take a reduced package. The latter of these is illegal (extortion) but it happens all the time in severance negotiations with scummy companies. Moreover, executive pay is complicated. Does one count stock options at the price then, or at the price now? How are projected bonuses, in a job the person hasn't yet left, handled? It is legit to change $100k base and $30k performance bonus to $80k and $50k? Representing salary as too high is construed as "misrepresentation", but salaries that are too low (trend improvement) can be taken the same way. It's like the fast-lane paradox: if you follow the law to the letter, you can't legally drive in the left-hand lane in most states, because it's illegal to drive below the speed limit and (of course) it's illegal to drive above it. So this is a very murky area. Why do companies ask for salary information on non-executive employees as well? Because people will give it up. It's that simple. It costs nothing to ask, and people will usually volunteer the information. I generally don't offer those numbers. If I do, I give the total package (counting equity at valuation) for the last job and omit the rest of the numbers, and I never put it in writing. (My salary history has always been good and with upward trend, so it's not exactly a problem, but I don't like giving it out.) What I made in 2006 is not relevant to anything. Oh, and if a company ever asks for a W-2 form as a condition of employment, to verify salary or bonus, run like the fucking wind. You don't want to work with people like that. Trust me.
• patio11 15y ago
  I think you would have been justified saying "This requirement is ethically suspect, I will not be a party to it, and if the business requires otherwise then our time together is at an end.", even if semi-coercively browsing folks' Facebooks was demonstrably a wonderful idea for the business. That said, bully for you, and if it takes more than thirty seconds to line up a new position in this market I'm sure many of us would be willing to assist.
  • raganwald 15y ago
    I am not now, nor will I ever be, an employee of a company that compels a Director of Development to follow HR edicts about hiring practices without mutually respectful consultation.
    • wdewind 15y ago
      So this is more of a "expect this type of stuff to happen if this becomes the norm" deal? Either way, interesting read and gave me some stuff to think about, as usual. Thanks.
      • eshrews 15y ago
        Yes, he confirms further down in the comments that this is a fictional story.
        • doktrin 15y ago
          I wish he had made this more clear in the actual original post. Unless I'm missing something, there was no indication of this being a parable. As it stands, I had already scanned his resume to mentally blacklist his most recent employer. The massive google flamewar that occupies the top 1/3rd of this page notwithstanding, burying the true nature the article deep in the HN comments isn't really the best practice.
          • unreal37 15y ago
• poppysan 15y ago
  Not only does this give companies a glimpse on how invasion of privacy is potentially bad for both parties, it also arms potential employees with a way to fight against policies that invade your privacy. Well done.
• minsight 15y ago
  I was expecting to see far more feedback from incredulous Americans in "at-will" states undergoing employment culture shock. It's nice to see that the Canadian point of view translates so well.
  • wmf 15y ago
    At-will employment doesn't overrule anti-discrimination laws, does it?
    • ahi 15y ago
      There are far fewer protected classes in most US jurisdictions than in canada. E.g You can be fired for being gay in most states.
    • minsight 15y ago
      I'd expect that employees working in "at-will" states would be less likely to take a stand against their employers, even if the law were in their favour. ps. I'd love to be wrong about this...
      • wmf 15y ago
        That's probably true in general, although if you don't get hired due to discrimination and then sue, usually you avoid the conflict by asking for a cash settlement instead of a job.
  • roguecoder 15y ago
    Even at will states are subject to federal employment laws. We may get no parental leave, but the ADA has been quite enforceable.
  • johngalt 15y ago
    I'd expect the converse. The harder it is to fire someone; the more paranoid you get about the hiring process.
  • jaylevitt 15y ago
• postfuturist 15y ago
  I would never coerce anyone to look through their Facebook account (or email, or personal photo album, or their journal, etc) under any circumstance, especially a job interview where the candidate feels pressured to be obliging. What a shameful act!
• drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Called this a week and a half ago. Anyone who's LGBT (or anyone period really) knows that there are reasons to keep things on FB private from friends, family, employers selectively, etc. I had mentioned this was likely illegal for this very reason. Numerous states in the US have similar anti-discrimination laws. When I was interviewed at Microsoft they basically told me I couldn't talk about certain things and they were specifically trained to not ask questions that could reveal information that could lead to these sorts of suits. I don't understand the downvotes? I've seen at least 4 people downvote this. Do you not believe me? And to edit for the people below, I was more or less hint-hint told that this was at least including not wanting to force someone to reveal that they were LGBT. I know that at least the group I was with, they were forbid from asking if "you have a girlfriend" and it wasn't for fear of an interviewer hitting on someone.
  • excuse-me 15y ago
    > Anyone who's LGBT knows that there are reasons to keep >things on FB private from friends, family, ... See now if only people could keep it secret that they were; black, female, Jewish, etc as well there would be no problem of discrimination in the world!
    • burgerbrain 15y ago
      I know that you're not serious, but I just feel the need to reinforce that having to hide a portion of your identity does not in fact shield you from discrimination. The simple fact that you have to do so is discrimination itself. Of course the idea is to eliminate a subset of discrimination, which arguably it does well, but to do so it introduces another sort.
      • excuse-me 15y ago
        I think the point was rather that there should be no need to hide details of your sexuality from your friends in case your employer forces you to reveal it. Personally I hate stereotyping - and stupid Americans
  • 15y ago
• chao- 15y ago
  I am not planning on being interviewed for a new job any time soon. Despite that, when the whole "Facebook disclosure during interview/hire" topic broke, I began preparing my short list of ways to act indignant/offended or to lay on some thick sarcasm that gets across just how horrible they should feel for even suggesting something of the sort. This blows everything I had out of the water. Props for the creativity and execution.
  • saryant 15y ago
    As someone about to graduate college and interviewing at a number of firms I'm sort of hoping one of them asks for my Facebook password so I can laugh in their face while I accept one of the other several offers I've received.
• burningion 15y ago
  This exact same process is what kept me from applying to ycombinator this year. Asking for my Facebook url is the same considering everyone at ycombinator has whatever access they need. Raised $20k in two weeks on my own instead, for a much less percentage than ycombinator would have.
  • ryguytilidie 15y ago
    Kinda worried that you run your own business and dont understand the difference between a link to your public fb profile and the login information to your fb profile. I guess it can be explained by the fact that you came here to diss YC, why do it in any sort of logical manner when you can say something moronic instead?
    • burningion 15y ago
      No, what worries me is that ycombinator is very tight with Facebook, and that they may access non-public information. Facebook logs a whole lot more info than most people know. Not trying to diss ycombinator at all, just stating how I felt, I apologize.
      • alasano 15y ago
        That's a bit too tinfoil-hatty for me.
  • davorak 15y ago
    Non-optional field? Did they ask for a blog url as well? Was it optional? Facebook can be used as promotional tool for a business, hence why a Facebook url could be relevant.
  • emmett 15y ago
    You do know that anyone can already look up your Facebook page anyway right? Y-Combinator isn't asking for you to give them access to log in as you on Facebook, they're asking for a link to your public page.
• fleitz 15y ago
  I think a lawsuit of epic proportions would be the perfect thing to staunch the tide of this kind of fascist invasion of privacy. If someone gets $5 million for this it would stop it pretty quick.
• hndude 15y ago
  Final sentence of the third-to-last paragraph: initiatng should be initiating
• johngalt 15y ago
  This post points more to the absurdly litigious nature of hiring/firing. It's an interesting exploration of the matter. Approaching the problem of employee privacy at an oblique angle. It won't scare any HR departments though. Most have systems in place to create reasons for not hiring or firing. All that you've guaranteed is that the HR person will be making all hiring decisions. Fundamentally your best defense against discrimination is being too good to ignore.
  • mikeash 15y ago
    That may be the best defense against discrimination, but many people are discriminated against who simply aren't that good, yet are still good enough to deserve to make some kind of living at some kind of job.
• cpeterso 15y ago
  Is there a list of companies that admit to or have been accused of asking for Facebook passwords?
  • GFischer 15y ago
    Orangecat linked to an investigation on the subject: http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-check-employers-asking-for-facebook-passwords/ http://courantblogs.com/investigative-reporting/claim-check-... Original post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3791357 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3791357
• jberryman 15y ago
  Sorry to be dense, but is this fiction or an actual open resignation letter? I don't know anything about raganwald.
  • raganwald 15y ago
    Fictional. raganwald is too much of a slacker to be hired as a Director of Software Development
    • jberryman 15y ago
      heh :) thanks
    • morestuff 15y ago
      Captain of Undirected Development
    • chubot 15y ago
      Eh, you might want to clarify that somewhere... I thought it was real, and my reaction was "Wow this guy's kind of a dick, I wouldn't even have the balls to ask someone to open their facebook account in the first place".
      • jberryman 15y ago
        I think the lack of clarity is actually kind of refreshing for the web. You get that with literary magazines sometimes, where it's not apparent if something is fiction or memoir. But it's odd arriving there from HN.
        • marshray 15y ago
          Yeah, I kind of enjoyed the weird uncertainty for a few minutes. I thought the Nixon letter was a nice touch.
          • philwelch 15y ago
• noonespecial 15y ago
  Its as simple as "There are certain questions you can't ask during job interviews". Its been illegal to ask these questions for 20 years, and nearly no one disputes this. A peak at the prospect's Facebook page answers all of them. This should be the biggest no-brainer in HR history.
  • Daniel_Newby 15y ago
    All questions are legal to ask. What's illegal is discriminating on the basis of certain answers. The reason not to ask is to avoid being the target of a witch hunt. This is why competent background checks are conducted by a security officer who produces nothing but a list of disqualifications along with the factual evidence to back them up. ("The candidate appears to engage in the unlawful use of mind altering drugs. [Facebook photo of bong use attached.]")
    • fleitz 15y ago
      You'd have to be a really shitty security officer to leap from bong to illegal drug use. There's a reason it's legal to sell bongs, because they have lots of other uses than illegal drugs. Also, many of the drugs used in bongs are legal to use in many different circumstances. The laws in Ontario are written this way to prevent exactly this sort of idiocy. That's why you don't even ask these things because it's irrelevant to the job. If illegal drug use doesn't disqualify the President of the United States from his job why should it exclude anyone else?
      • Drbble 15y ago
        Bongs ("drug paraphernalia") are in fact illegal in many jurisdictions.
      • VMG 15y ago
        > There's a reason it's legal to sell bongs, because they have lots of other uses than illegal drugs. Just out of curiousness - what do you mean?
• jtchang 15y ago
  Do you know why small startups/companies don't have an HR person right off the bat? It is because the damn concept is demeaning at the very least. Who wants to be thought of as a "resource"? Above all else I feel like culture fit is the #1 priority in hiring someone. And if a company's culture encourages peeking into peoples' private lives that is disgraceful. The modern corporation is a vestige of the 1900s where factory workers all had to show up to a central location and toil for hours on end. Is it possible to create a future where a "company" has thousands of employees but still retain all the benefits of a small group? Already we see it happening. Perhaps the 21st century will bring about this dynamic shift.
  • skybrian 15y ago
    The reason you'd want an HR person would be to keep the company from accidentally doing illegal stuff like what happens in this story. Startups can get away with it because they're small with few assets and their legal risks around hiring are smallish compared to their many other risks. As companies get larger, statistically rare events become more likely and at the same time they have more to lose. So I'd say no, it's not possible in a large company to get by without HR, but there's still a lot of ways to improve the process.
    • potatolicious 15y ago
      I don't expect to ever be rid of HR, but can we as an industry at least collectively stop pretending that HR is on the side of the employees? This is a pervasive, explicit lie that's told by HR departments everywhere. Sometimes I wonder how HR personnel sleep at night.
      • toyg 15y ago
        Oh, they sleep quite well: it's nice work, if you can get it. The workload is incredibly low, and the hardest task is to find something new to do this year at the Christmas party. Because of huge legal responsibilities nobody will actually pay attention to, the salary is fairly good as well. Since the policies you enact are all drawn in accordance with (and full knowledge by) upper management, you can't be held personally accountable of anything anyway, so when/if shit hits the fan, the company will cover you with all the power of their legal team. The rest is all corporate doublespeak, not unlike what you'll experience in any other managerial job. I bet you met at least one direct superior, in your life, who told you he was on your side vs the company/upper management; chances are that he was being as honest as any HR personnel will ever be.
• euphoria83 15y ago
  So, is the resignation due to fear of litigation or because of the moral quandary ? Clearly, the author was okay with looking at the FB profiles of the candidates and would have probably continued to do so, had he not been threatened twice on the same day. I wonder why he could not refuse to indulge the HR, especially since he held a pretty important position in the company.
  • hub_ 15y ago
    To me, the resignation was linked to thinking of the consequences. At first the (fictional) manager just did what he was told, then quickly thought of it, and instead of fighting it, put a stop on it. Moral grounds, economic grounds (the fear of discrimination lawsuit is economic), etc. This is all fiction, but while I always thought snooping on a (potential) employee via any way (including FB) was morally wrong, this fictional story just opened the eye wider why it is wrong.
• michaelochurch 15y ago
  Holy shit. Except for a few details, I could have written that. I recently had a job I was "promoted" into a pseudo-managerial role and immediately asked to disparage people I actually really liked, in order to put a "unified front" about our history and our people before new management. Told it would be "insubordination" not to sign this "official version of events", even though it was full of factual inaccuracies. I was shocked and disgusted. (The company's engineers are great; this is a managerial ethics problem.) Resigned on the spot. No two weeks' notice, just walked the fuck out. Half my friends think I'm a hero for not selling my soul. Half think I'm an idiot for firing myself to avoid harming others who were in someone's crosshairs already. I don't think I'm either. Hero and idiot both imply a choice. I had none. I am not going to do the wrong thing. Ever. Not for more equity in a company whose executives are okay with this kind of shit, not to keep a job. Just not fucking happening.
  • temphn 15y ago
    Just from the interwebs looks like you've had problems at two employers now including Google: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3783114 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3783114 Maybe the problem is you, not the employer?
    • ryguytilidie 15y ago
      Yeah because if you have beef with more than one company doing sketchy shit its probably your fault...?
    • csallen 15y ago
      Unless you're going to present some solid evidence, it's out of place to make that suggestion based on only two data points.
      • michaelochurch 15y ago
        In August, I suggested that the only way we'd see lasting success/popularity for G+ was to build a really great game brand, and that we couldn't do this if we were publishing a mix of (a) Zynga games and (b) decent but not brand-defining games like Angry Birds (non-defining because it was already popular by then). I got a few people together and we came up with a plan for saving the Games brand by courting indie developers. A plan that would have worked, and that likely would have made G+ into something. I had massive support (including about 2/3 of the G+ Games team, because who wants to support Farmville instead of doing something cool?) among the engineers and a lot of people said they'd contribute on a 20% basis (even though 20%T was clearly dying). This drew a lot of attention to me. Positive attention from everyone who cared about games or the actual success of G+. Negative attention from the higher-ups because they were afraid of another RNCH. Googlers don't talk about it for fear of losing their jobs, but the engineers hate the Real Names policy. It's probably 80 to 90 percent opposition. Here was another mini-RN (even titled "Real Games") that I inadvertently started in my first 3 months by pointing out that the direction we were taking with games was going to set a historical record for missed opportunities. A weird and harrowing experience. I really did not anticipate that positing a good idea and getting a lot of popular support would lead to adversity. I underestimated the degree (and I still do) to which people would entrench themselves with bad ideas. I still stand by the fact that I was completely and utterly right. The only way I can see a general-purpose social network beating Facebook is by having great games, and by having a very high average quality (a "we won't waste your time" ideology). This requires being extremely editorial about what you accept. This is hard for Google because it made its name by being non-editorial, which is admirable and stately for web search but inappropriate for games, especially because those shitty Zynga games were (in 2011) the #1 cited cause of social network fatigue. I didn't get fired, because I don't think Google knows how to fire people. (If it did, there'd be boxes at the desks of most of their executives.) I left in good standing when I realized that (a) I had years of C++ legacy maintenance ahead of me, because that's what most of the work at Google is, and (b) it would take several years before I'd actually be able to really contribute. Not being able to save the Games product was pretty discouraging. This is what people keep talking about here on HN with regard to me and Google. That, and the fact that I got mixed up with one of the most ineffective means of communication (an internal mailing list that rhymes with henge-risk) I've ever encountered.
• jasonmcalacanis 15y ago
  I read this an immediately thought 'this is an April 1st joke.' Looks like it's science fiction :-) http://twitter.com/#!/raganwald/status/186940946015993856 http://twitter.com/#!/raganwald/status/186940946015993856
• dabent 15y ago
  I wonder what the employer's response would be to "I don't have a Facebook page?" Would I be required to get one in order to give them the password? Also, it seems they would be selecting for people who were willing to trade passwords for money in the interview. The decision to trade sensitive data has already been made, it's now just a matter of negotiating price.
  • jakejake 15y ago
    They're response would probably depend on whether they already know you have a Facebook account. But assuming you got away with it - if it's the type of company that is asking for Facebook passwords, then it's type the company that's likely to fire you later when they find out that you lied during the interview. I haven't had to experience this yet, but I would like to think I'd just decline and say they are free to look at whatever public information is available on my Facebook page.
    • dabent 15y ago
      I wouldn't lie about it, in fact I can't see ever consenting to such a thing (giving out a password to any service to someone it doesn't belong to). But there are actually people out there that don't have a FB account. I was wondering how an employer would deal with that. Other people would probably ghost their FB, give up the password or friend an overseer, but never use the account again.
      • jakejake 15y ago
        If you don't use FB then I suppose the company would be satisfied since they don't need to worry about what you post. The whole thing is ridiculous. If they wanted to get dirt on most of us they'd probably find more here in our hackernews accounts. If they're going to do that we might as well give them our email password too so they can read all of our private correspondences. I could barely believe it when I read that this was happening and people were putting up with it. I can't wait for some large company to get sued and shamed over this.
• blantonl 15y ago
  Can someone explain in reasonable terms, why an HR manager would would choose to enact a policy that requires perspective employees to surrender their Facebook activity as a condition of employment? I am really trying to understand what logical motivation is directing this latest craze. Was it a recent HR conference session that sold HR managers on the idea? An article written in an HR trade journal that cited definitive stats that sealed the argument?
  • Duff 15y ago
    The published examples that I have seen were teachers and prison guards. Employers of these folks want evidence of fraternization with students and inmate families, respectively.
  • blantonl 15y ago
    I think this person answered this question perfectly: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3790563 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3790563
  • carguy1983 15y ago
    > why an HR manager would would choose to enact a policy that requires perspective employees Fear. Ignorance. Stupidity. Anachronism.
  • excuse-me 15y ago
    Asking at an interview is crazy - all it does is open you upto lawsuits. I have worked at places that do Google tracking of your name/company email/company name. I only discovered this when I posted on a tech support forum for a product we use, using my company email. Then got dragged before HR because "any corporate publication", including apparently my support request needs to be approved by legal! I can see a short step to tracking FB/blog/twitter of employees to check they aren't saying anything about the company.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• skybrian 15y ago
  This is great as a work of fiction that vividly gets across the issues. In practice, I would expect companies that are legally on the ball to work around it somehow. I'm not a lawyer or an HR person, but the obvious answer is to outsource background checks to an outside firm that only includes legally permissible information in a written report to the hiring committee. (Don't they do that already for background checks?)
  • mjwalshe 15y ago
    yes if you "need" to vet people there are procedures (and quite expensive ones) to do that. However 99% of companies don't "need" to vet any employees.
• tsantero 15y ago
  Ethics aside, an employer asking for login access to your Facebook profile is a violation of Facebook's TOS. That being said, I don't care how difficult the job market is--if a potential employer demonstrates that they have no regard for your personal privacy during the interview process, you should thank them for their time, smile and never look back.
• phzbOx 15y ago
  I know I'll probably get down-voted but.. isn't it unfair to take a new job and get away for 6 months for parenting purpose? And what about being lesbian.. why would a company not hire a women because of that? I don't know, I somewhat believe that once you put something on the web, be it facebook or not, it's now public. Yeah, on my facebook I have pictures that I'd rather not show to any employers but if they choose not to hire me for that, I'd rather not work at a place like this. But, while writing this, I kind of realised that not everyone is in my position.. and not everyone is as open minded to accept homosexuals.. so I guess I understand what it's unethical.
  • morsch 15y ago
    Not everything you see when you log into your social media account is public information, and not everything you see was posted by you.
  • T-hawk 15y ago
    > isn't it unfair to take a new job and get away for 6 months for parenting purpose? There's a number of answers to that: 1) Biology is unfair. Birthing a child obviously takes much more effort and time from the mother than the father. We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job demands. 2) It should come out in the wash on the back end. When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive less reward here. 3) Maybe it IS unfair and that's why companies would seek to avoid hiring likely-to-become-pregnant women if they were not legally barred from doing so. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all these, in different situations. Some women can bear a child and not miss a beat in productivity at a job. Some perhaps do use maternity leave as an excuse for a vacation.
    • orangecat 15y ago
      We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job demands. In which case we should collectively pay for it rather than dumping the burden on her employer, especially since as you note that creates a disincentive to hire any woman of childbearing age. When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive less reward here. Her attorney might see things differently.
• ChuckMcM 15y ago
  Well played Raganwald, well played. The Nixon resignation letter was a nice touch. Perhaps the most interesting of times arises when firmly entrenched control structures are threatened. The Facebook login fiasco, and it is a fiasco, is one such example.
• wildmXranat 15y ago
  The whole trend of bending the rules and pushing what's acceptable is rather frightening. Living in Ontario, Canada, I haven't heard of instances where any friends of mine were compelled to open up their Facebook profile. Could it be that it's just a matter of time ? It used to be that we worried about getting three good job references and not having a clean social network slate. Not having a FB account is looking pretty good to me, not that it didn't before.
• aneth 15y ago
  While I have complete respect for @raganwald, I find it somewhat disturbing that he would even begin to implement or go along with this policy. I can't imagine asking an interviewee to login to their private facebook account, any more than their private email or dating website. The answer should have been no at the first suggestion and I hope he amends his blog to indicate that even the few times he did this was completely wrong, in addition to placing the company in a tenuous legal situation. As an interviewee, I would be outraged and walk out.
  • unimpressive 15y ago
    He didn't. The letter is fictional.
    • aneth 15y ago
      Hmm. While thought provoking, this should be identified some in some way as fictional. Anyhow, even in theory, complying with the policy for a moment would be unethical.
      • unimpressive 15y ago
        >Hmm. While thought provoking, this should be identified some in some way as fictional. At the end maybe? >Anyhow, even in theory, complying with the policy for a moment would be unethical. The OP admits this in the comments here.
• ryanto 15y ago
  I have a stupid question. Has anyone ever been asked this in an interview? Or knows anyone that has been asked/asked this question? I've been reading a lot about this situation over the last month, but have never heard anyone say it happened to them or someone they know. Just stories that seem like rumors/gossip. I do not know many people who are right out of college and interviewing (and that's who I assume would be asked this sort of question), so maybe my network is too small to have heard of it happening. Also, I realize many people will sign NDAs about the interview process, I am not looking for juicy details of when/where/how it happened. I'd just love to know if people actually had this happen at one point in the last few years.
  • driverdan 15y ago
    People are actually willing to do an NDA for an interview? Why would anyone want to work for a company like that?
    • hub_ 15y ago
      I was actually surprised when for some position I was not asked to sign a NDA for the interview. I was actually expecting it.
      • excuse-me 15y ago
        It could be that either an interview is considered privalleged - and so any information you are told (and anything you tell the recruiter) is considered confidential anyway. In the same way that an employee doesn't need an NDA Of course the sensible thing is not to tell you anythign secret!
    • ryguytilidie 15y ago
      former facebook employee here. Everyone who entered the campus signed NDAs, period.
    • ImprovedSilence 15y ago
      I interviewed for a medical device company a few years back, I signed an NDA for it, they showed me some cool technology they were working on, I got to take a tour around the place, and actually see what was being developed, how their processes work, and how far along they are on certain things. How they design, and fab up their products. Companies that make you sign NDA's are really just protecting their back. How do they know I wasn't actually working for some rival company, and just got their interview to see what was going on. If that was the case, an NDA gives them a bit more leverage in court. If it was just some random joe like myself, no big deal. Corporate espionage probably does happen. (I say probably, as I can't say i've ever witnessed it though.)
• victoro 15y ago
  Interesting that people are so up in arms about having prospective employers browse their facebook, but have no problem when asked if their employers can peruse their blood, hair, or urine under the guise of a drug test. Private, recreational drug use seems just as much nobody's business as private recreational drinking or sexual promiscuity that could be uncovered by facebook investigations...
• mhartl 15y ago
  Now of course, you would never refuse to hire someone because they plan to exercise their legal right to parental leave, would you? I'm sympathetic to the principal message of this post, but regarding the bit about parental leave: Has it really come to this? If someone takes a job intending to "exercise their legal right to parental leave" shortly after joining, it's the company that's the bad guy for wanting to stop it? To my eye, such behavior identifies the employee a special interest parasite, feeding at the public trough with a smug sense of entitlement. It's effectively illegal to ask a job applicant, "Are you intending to take an extended paid vacation shortly after starting?" That's not progress—it's madness.
  • ryguytilidie 15y ago
    I actually think this is a great point. As much as I completely agree with the letter, the idea that the first thing job applicants do is threaten me with legal action for something they presume I will do doesn't really inspire much confidence in me that they are good people or that they will contribute much to the organization.
    • raganwald 15y ago
      I agree with you in principlr, but let's not over-think a fictional situation where a job applicant threatens a company that makes sharing FB information a condition of employment. It's all made up and the points don't matter, but from where I sit, once a company behaves like this, you have to either walk away or play hardball. They might actually respect your cojones if you cut it rough, you're speaking their language.
      • ryguytilidie 15y ago
        Ah, if thats the case than I 100% agree with you. Initially the interactions seem like hyperbole that was probably made up, but yeah, if they're made up, I know what you mean. As I said in a different post above, I recently left a company where they had asked all of us to sign new employment contracts. I most certainly was not the only one.
  • 15y ago
• orofino 15y ago
  This got me thinking, does a friend request from your boss constitute an inquiry with possibly the same effects? Personally, I try to avoid sending friend requests to subordinates, but it wasn't necessarily for this reason.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• tomelders 15y ago
  So he goes along with it right up to the point where it affects him? He's outraged only when it makes his day worse? Am I meant to applaud the protagonist in this this story? Because to me he sounds like a scumbag. People are espousing some pretty weird morals these days.
  • raganwald 15y ago
    Thanks, this was one of the ideas I was trying to get across, that by shrugging and going along with stuff like this, we're condoning and supporting it.
    • michaelochurch 15y ago
      Thank you so much for writing it. What is your interpretation of why this protagonist allowed unethical activity to continue for so long? Just to keep his job? Or is there something more to it? I think people have accepted a certain fatalism about corporate scumbaggery: corporate entities are complex and bound to have some unethical people within them, so why fight it? Sure; it's true that unethical people will exist in any sufficiently large set. I wouldn't quit a job at a 10,000-person company because I found out that one employee was unethical. Let's fire him and get on with our lives. But when scumbags are getting promoted in spite of, or even because of, their ethical depravity, it's a really bad thing. I think most Americans believe that "work" and "life" are separate and that it's perfectly acceptable to be a scumbag at work because "everyone is like that". People who wouldn't even think of shoplifting have no problem damaging careers, teams, and entire companies for ridiculously short-sighted reasons. I'd like to open a Work Court in which people can "sue" employers over the low- and mid-grade scumbaggery of the sort that isn't worth a real lawsuit. Instead of a suit taking years and burning up half the award in legal fees, it can be settled in an afternoon. This Court has no authority to collect judgments (if there are awards, they come from ad revenue) but it can censure, and the effect of the censure is to bring public exposure to unethical activity.
    • tomelders 15y ago
      Good to know. For a while there I thought I was just be an grumpy spoil sport.
• jacquesm 15y ago
  This would have packed a lot more punch if you actually resigned.
• dkrich 15y ago
  I have been reading about this and it not only seems like an absurd invasion of privacy, but in violation of several federal employment laws. Being somewhat familiar with employment law, I would be nervous to ask a prospective employee ANYTHING that was not directly related to past work or the position in question. Employment law is one of the most murky and sensitive areas of the law, and I'm convinced that the only reason there aren't more lawsuits is that most people simply don't know their rights. Let me cite a specific example. I once sat in on a lecture by a former attorney-turned successful media entrepreneur who owned a fairly successful magazine. During a routine interview for an art director position, one of her staff members who was conducting the interview noticed that the candidate was wearing a Yarmulke. She said something to the effect of "During certain seasonal spikes, we have a huge increase in workload that can extend into the weekends. I see that you're Jewish, and I am too. Do you think working on weekends is something you can do?" The interview concluded, and they exchanged goodbyes. The interviewer expressed interest but asked the candidate to send over some work samples, but the samples never came. Instead, after a few weeks a letter arrived from the candidate's attorney informing the magazine that they were being sued. They settled out of court for nearly $50,000. That seems pretty egregious and the woman was pretty naive to bring up such a sensitive matter in an interview, but I don't see how it's any worse than demanding to see somebody's protected Facebook account.
  • hessenwolf 15y ago
    This whole demanding to see somebody's facebook account thing - do they want to read my old love letters too? The last letter from my dearly departed Father? My online dating profile? What about my now unused university email account?
• roundfounder 15y ago
  amazing. as a manager and someone who spends his time trying to make sure my actions and policies dont constrain our best people, this rings so true. Thank you for your thoughts on this issue and I wholly agree with you that these sorts of invasive practices will ultimately kill innovation and any real identity in a workplace.
• delinka 15y ago
  Them: "I'll need to see your Facebook page." Me: "OK, search Facebook for my name." Them: "I'll need you to log in for me..." Me: L.O.D. pause, walk out
• bborud 15y ago
  If you have to resign in order to have this HR policy changed the company you were working for was not worth working for anyway. I don't think it is right to work for companies that disrespect their employees on such a fundamental level. You did the right thing in resigning. I am also somewhat surprised that you complied with the policy. Why would you comply when you knew it was wrong?
• victorbstan 15y ago
  You got what you asked for.
• BillPosters 15y ago
  Hang on a second, what if the interviewee doesn't have a Facebook account? Or just lies and says they don't have one? Would the next question be "why not" or "show us your email in-box"? Don't tell me that not having a Facebook account now weighs against your eligibility in an interview? That would be sad. What next? Everyone must have a FB account by law? And why didn't Braithwaite just not ask the candidates the FB question? "Fired for refusing to invade interviewee privacy" is better than "resigns after invading interviewee privacy". Edit... so apparently it's all fiction. Time wasted.
• dinkumthinkum 15y ago
  Anyone who actually does is this just scum. I want to invoke the obvious references but in order to avoid Godwin's Law, I will simply say being the one to actual "screen" the person's Facebook account is ... well I can't really come up with an accurate description without invoking the Law, just please infer for yourself. It violates just norms that it seems we should all have about decency. It's one thing to search for a prospective hire's social networking pages and if they have anything public, yes you use that against them to your heart's content. But to actively invade their privacy like this is just disgusting. Why not just ask for the cell phones and wallets so you can rifle through them, make sure you read every text message. It's extremely disgusting. It just crosses every line imaginable; I don't hyperbole is really possible for this sort practice.
• evanwolf 15y ago
  Wimp. The proper behavior is to refuse to perform an immoral or illegal act and to decline to follow an immoral or illegal direction. That leaves your superiors with choices of their own: change their behavior, ignore you, or fire you. If they change their behavior, great; the company is better for your convictions. If they ignore you (denial) and continue bad actions, you can always look for another job and/or continue to advocate change from within. You are not participating in the bad behavior and have performed your duty to communicate the problem. If they fire you, you may have wrongful termination recourse that you definitely won't have if you resign. The cold walkout, on the other hand, only affects management teams capable of shame (unlikely if the leadership has corrupted values) or susceptible to public pressure. Your specific challenge is incompetence, not morality. You will always be surrounded by incompetence, if not occasionally sharing your own. While incompetence may be a moral failing, people with good intentions can improve things if sufficiently motivated. Your leaving is unlikely to do that. Instead of having a knock down, drag out, face-to-face, serious reality-check conversation, risking strong and unpleasant emotions en route to a new consensus, you ran away. You bailed when the company obviously needs someone of your experience, skill, insight and expressiveness. You may have other reasons to quit, but the one you gave showed cowardice in the face of a leadership challenge. Next time, don’t be a wimp. Stand and hold your ground.
  • cheald 15y ago
    Hint: It's a fictional parable.
    • zaidmo 15y ago
      I took it to be a real story, although I was confused by the image (which was another story)
• jakejake 15y ago
  Last year we were looking for a new office manager. One girl applies & we found some public pictures she had posted on Facebook. One of them she was kissing the ass of a statue of a clown. We hired her immediately.
• JasonVV 15y ago
  I would think twice about hiring someone that makes their resignation letter public like this. That being said, kudos for taking a stand (albeit only AFTER invading peoples privacy by reading their facebook). My guess is that you decided you wanted to leave when the COO forced you to do this, but rather than quit then and there, you decided to teach her a lesson as a parting gift... am I wrong? :)
• 7plusminus2 15y ago
  Mad props to the guy!
• brownbat 15y ago
  Exactly. Anti-discrimination is why this shouldn't happen. Token vanity plug for when I said this (far less artfully) a few days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3747875 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3747875
• derleth 15y ago
  OK, from the linked-to piece: > If you are surfing my Facebook, you could reasonably be expected to discover that I am a Lesbian. Obviously correct. However, they could also discover so much more about her that doesn't relate to any civil rights legislation, such as that she drinks jaegerbombs or uses the wrong kind of power saw. Now, those would be terrible reasons to not hire someone, but they're legal reasons, and can be brought up in court to dispute the claims they didn't hire her because of sexual orientation. So, my point is, that's another reason the "Give us your Facebook password" is bad: It could easily undermine important civil rights legislation.
• JohnnyFlash 15y ago
  If someone viewed my Facebook profile, based on my lack of usage they could only come to the conclusion I am a person with few friends and no interests. Seems like a silly way to learn more about people.
• paganel 15y ago
  I had to double-check it wasn't an April Fools' joke. And then I realized it was for real, that this is a software company we're talking company, presumably employing "educated" and "smart" people. "Background checks", "Facebook stalking" etc etc, this is as close to living in a totalitarian and dystopian world as we can get.
  • TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago
    It's actually fictional.
• jph 15y ago
  I'm a longtime admirer of your work, and good for you for standing up. I deeply appreciate what you're doing.
• professobananas 15y ago
  damn.
• jurre 15y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree with your point and you make it very well, but I'm afraid your preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone that finds this article (either through hn or otherwise) disagrees with the fact that the practice of scanning (potential) employees' personal facebook accounts is wrong and that nothing good could come of it. How do we reach the people that do think it's a good idea?
• snappysucker 15y ago
  Did anyone in turn ask to look at your facebook profile? Shouldn't they know who they are applying to work for?
• cmsj 15y ago
  Who the hell actually is this guy? Google search results for his name appear to be useless, misleading and contradictory because they're currently ruined by the firehose of bloggernaut bullshit.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• bakhy 15y ago
  "I was willing to go along with things and see how they panned out." - so much for the sincerity of your supposed indignation. at the end, all that drove you out is the fear of exposure of your own ass due to anti-discrimination laws. and even now, after leaving, you do not have the nerve to directly express any kind of stand regarding the invasion of privacy your COO requested you do. from your ambivalent "style" it is just as easily possible to conclude that you are "speaking out" against anti-discrimination laws. but, in the end, you are saying absolutely nothing. pathetic.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• kanze 15y ago
  This exact same process is what kept me from applying to ycombinator this year. Asking for my Facebook url is the same considering everyone at ycombinator has whatever access they need. Raised $20k in two weeks on my own instead, for a much less percentage than ycombinator would have http://www.cloudromance.com http://www.cloudromance.com
• gerryLowry 15y ago
  Really, Reginald, are you a fellow Ontarian? That you might be living in Ontario was one of my surprises on first reading http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-hereby-resign ... i would not normally read you however i follow Martin Fowler and he wrote this today: https://twitter.com/#!/martinfowler/status/187159051698835458 https://twitter.com/#!/martinfowler/status/18715905169883545... Did you really resign as Director of Software Development over this issue? Or, is that just you being a creative essayist? aside: when bloggers arrived, it seems essayists became extinct. One thing is certain ... i now see at least one use for an iPad. Also, apparently i made an error in judgement on removing the fact that i've been programming for 45+ years ... more if you let me count overtime. FWIW, i'm still learning to program ... it's nice to glean from your article that i might be better off to simply sue every prospect who fails to give me an interview. unfortunately, i, up to seconds ago, assumed that i could file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights commission ... but as of a minute ago at http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/age http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/age, i learned: "On June 30, 2008, the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission changed. The Commission will no longer accept complaints of discrimination." The same page in the link above does tell me that i'm protected from age discrimination. Hmmmm. Perhaps i could complain to Bashir al-Assad? Hmmmm, again, i just noticed there's an Ass in al-Assad. In November 2009, i began working for a company where i had four managers ... but then let's not talk about "corporate transition" ... i'm tempted to name that company here but then this comment could be in the internet-verse for decades to centuries baring some galactic or man made calamity destroying planet earth. I probably should not mention my April 28th birthday because Jay Leno and the late Saddam Hussein share my birth date ... imagine some HR Letterman fan seeing my name coming up with Leno's in a Google-ish search! Dear Reginald ... if you really did resign your position over such a machiavellian HR policy, then you've dewservedly earned my utmost respect. Regards, Gerry Lowry https://www.gerrylowryprogrammer.com/ https://www.gerrylowryprogrammer.com/
  • dhimes 15y ago
    It's fiction.
• BobertK 15y ago
  Orwell is laughing somewhere.
• Prophasi 15y ago
  Bone-headed HR move, particularly in light of the prevailing laws but quite apart from them, too. It's invasive and uncomfortable, and probably not a place I'd feel welcome as an employee. What it mostly reinforces to me, however, is just how terribly ignorant and wishful laws like that are. If I build a business and bottom out my bank account, kill myself with 100-hour weeks, and build my very life around making the company work, you better believe I have the right to know if the person I'm hiring plans to take off for 6 months right after being hired. And you better believe that weighs against them in the hiring process. I didn't set up the business as a facet of family planning services: I want to hire someone who's willing to work hard to build my business in exchange for pay. If a person knows they're going to take 6 months off immediately, then it's not time to apply for a job, because you're not going to be working; apply for something when you're ready to actually do it. It continually amazes me how government largesse and layers of indirection break people's natural intuitions and allow them to condone forcing a third party to pay for their own life choices, in a vain attempt to mitigate the unfortunate trade-offs that accompany our constrained mortal existence. Transparency is not a bad thing. There are people out there who want a solid job that pays well and fulfills their ambition while making good money; and there are employers willing to offer those things in exchange for solid performance, a reasonable salary, and reliability. Get out of our way with this red tape garbage and let us find each other and do great things.
  • Prophasi 15y ago
    Downvoting was expected, as my post runs counter to the prevailing view on social services and opposition to capitalism "red in tooth and claw," but some commentary on why would be appreciated. My original post was relevant and not too inflammatory, I don't think. If you disagree with the substance of what I said, state your case instead of (or at least in addition to) downvoting. A reaction of moral indignation without discussion on a logical basis is at the heart of virtually everything wrong in modern US society. Break that, at least here.
• lizthegrey 15y ago
  This has been rubbing me the wrong way for the past day. It appears to state a false set of premises - that minorities have the bulletproof ability to threaten employers with being sued for discrimination unless they are hired, regardless of qualification. The focus on this ridiculous premise for rhetorical effect obscures the real danger of such requirements - that non-visible minority status leads to vulnerability to being discriminated against. People in minorities are disempowered and denied equal consideration, not demanding special rights to be hired even if unqualified. It's frankly insulting to have an argument has been used completely seriously to argue against the existence of anti-discrimination laws by Republicans and Libertarians instead used for the purposes of satire.
• bpyne 15y ago
  Firstly, hats off to raganwald for another thought-provoking piece. Whether or not the hypothetical interviewees in his letter could push the legal claims they threatened, companies may very well shy away from this violation of privacy simply to avoid the risk that they could be held liable later.
• Andre_Saveit 15y ago
  Very interesting! Thank you for a good point of view on this social media topic. And as far as I know, even Y Combinator want's to check out your facebook profile when you apply, right?
• phear 15y ago
  This is all incredibly ridiculous. How such a practice would become company policy is beyond me. Facebook has said they'd terminate a company's facebook page if it was found to be doing this. An interesting question though, would they fire an employee for not friending or liking the company page?.. Just ridiculous