In the last week or two, the NET11 Discussion Board has been running hot on issues of banality, reputation and privacy. Because I have a respect for people’s privacy, I have only shown contributors’ initials below.
We have been amazed at references to users of social networking sites who post considerable detail about themselves, much of it showing them in a very unfavourable light, and some of it sufficient to make contact, without, apparently, ever thinking that it may be seen by a villain, or by an employer, or by a parent, and without a thought being given to privacy settings on the SNS platform.
We discussed how SNS users share intimate details happily with people that have never met. NW said “maybe it will be a generational thing, children and adolescents who grow up now with social networking sites as the norm, may have numerous strong ties to people that they have never physically met. I don't believe that it will replace face-to-face relationships but what impact might it have on young people's social skills? I'm sure I'll be bringing out the old parents line ‘when I was a boy we...’, to my kids!”.
We pondered over why users feel the need to share every gruesome, banal detail of their life. I said “it just seems to me that there is some pressure amongst Facebook devotees to report their every action, as if not to do so implies some sort of defect or failure. Twitterers seem to have the same behaviour.” MN said “But this is different, it is like a showroom of banality, tragedy and performance, often negative. Disclosure of personal things is taken for granted” and he referred the class to lamebook.com which appears to be a site devoted to collecting feeds from the very worst Facebook has to offer.
Much bandwidth was used up discussing whether employers should use online resources to seek additional intelligence on job applicants.
MN discussed the case study of Mimi whose activist history found in her digital shadow affected her job application. “Sure she might have felt very strongly once in protesting but now she is qualified and willing to do the job. I agree with boyd if Mimi is the non-traditional person who can business wise and culturally work the store to a level of success then I would say hire her.”
KL was very frank with us and admitted to a case where she overlooked a job applicant due to a black digital shadow. I said “if her out-of-hours behaviour would have no effect on her capacity to perform [the job]then you should not taken that information into account. Maybe in the back of your mind, you were looking for human qualities like tact, discretion and judgement in the role, and felt that the candidate had disqualified herself in those regards. [However] you were perfectly entitled to Google up both candidates, and should not feel guilty about it. It's a perfect illustration of Tama's point, that our reputation is increasingly sourced from the internet and will influence employers and the like whether we like it or not. So we should take pains to manage our digital shadow with an internet footprint, so to speak!” SC agreed, and added that “online communication is such an important part of our lives these days that in many roles, not knowing appropriate behaviour online seems tantamount to not knowing proper spelling and grammar, or not knowing how to use a word processor. This is, of course, not the case with all jobs. But I feel like for many jobs, not knowing proper online etiquette is a bad sign.”
SP argued that “shouldn't we be judged on our professional use of online communication rather our personal use when applying for a job?” but I felt that the proposition “when people apply for jobs, they submit their CV’s which includes their previous jobs, publications, referees etc. Recruiters are permitted to consult these, and they recognize that such references will always be selected to cast a positive light on the applicant. There is no justification to stop employers looking for an independent or more balanced view, but what those applicants also have a right to expect is that the employers will keep what they find in context, and will only consider material that is relevant to the job. The trouble is, a rejected applicant will never know for sure that it was their online reputation which cost them a job or an interview.”
This gets us to what is possibly the strongest argument in this NET11, namely that you can’t control what others post about you, and you may regret what you posted about yourself in the past, but you can try to counter an unfortunate digital shadow with a positive internet footprint, a personal web presence. MN is sceptical: “If something negative exists get a blog then? Recreate your image? There is a difference in skill from just posting to making a full blown hey i'm wonderful just because I was throwing up at a mate's party please don't neglect my job application blog or website. But if someone sees something on the net and determines you are the 'hoon' or whatever for relationships or jobs, and no amount of arguing with evidence convinces them you are not, then rent, mortgages and food are important, as is love, but do you really want to be with people or work with people like that?”
My comment on this topic “we would hope that prospective employers would respect [that] online reputation is not a black and white question of good and bad. What teenagers post about themselves, or have posted about themselves should not generally count for much 10, 20 years later especially if it's about relatively trivial matters such as partying, nudity etc. or even political views. What would definitely be of more concern would be if those early posts pointed to seriously warped values, like encouraging terrorism, violence, abuse or even discrimination. Values held deeply as a teenager don't go away, even if immaturity does for most of us. On one hand, a boss should not disqualify an applicant unless the poor reputation found online is identifiably relevant to the job at hand. And on the other hand, every single job applicant must accept that any employer is perfectly within his or her rights to seek any legally available information on that applicant.” The sickening example of Kenny the cat abuser, posted by MN, is an example of those “seriously warped values”. I would never employ that guy!
MN admitted the value of a managed internet footprint and called for judgement with “online presence can be crafted, I am now accepting that argument, but there might be something from over 10 years ago out there that may haunt, but people change, so let's hope there is a sensible approach from all parties on this issue.”
The above is only a selection of the posts on whether a person’s digital footprint should be accessed by prospective employers for example. It could hardly be said that we resolved this difficult question, but one thing looks certain – as today’s young move into and the workforce and up through career structures, their digital shadow looks as though it will be increasingly consulted by those recruiting them and promoting them. It’s best to be alert and prepared, if not alarmed.
