Hacker News Reader

Comment by djaouen | Hacker News Reader

This is a unique form of privilege. Most people don’t have the choice to “disconnect”. It’s engage or die. Not that I think technology is the be all and end all, but I think we are lucky if we are in the position to be able to shun it. That’s all I am saying.

Edit: OK, I am probably wrong about this. Sorry for the stupid opinion :(

View on HN

> This is a unique form of privilege. Most people don’t have the choice to “disconnect”.

Not seeing it myself. Where's the not having the choice to disconnect? You just have a flip phone. People can still call and text you.

How is it engage or die?

Imagine, for example, applying for a job with no social media presence. OK, maybe “engage or die” is not the right phrase, but you get the gist of what I’m saying.

That's a bit of a stretch. They have phones (some of them still have smart phones - the article mentioned them putting away their iphones when they met). I think a phone is as much as you need to get by in the world and get a job

if what you are saying is that any deviation from the norm incurs a cost to your life, I agree. Some people are already abnormal so they can't pay that cost, but others can't pay simply because of some of the other choices they have made. I personally wouldn't call the latter a lack of privilege

Maybe. I’d have to think about it some more to formulate a more solid opinion. Thanks for the criticism!

I've never had a job that requires or has even asked about social media. You don't need a smartphone to keep a LinkedIn account or Instagram. You can simply log in when you're at home on a desktop or laptop.

how would a social media presence help anyone in a job application?

It just seems like a bit of an exaggeration. If they weren’t using the internet or phones in any sense I might understand, but not having social media or 24/7 access to it does not seem like an absolute prerequisite or something only “privileged people” could get away with.

I would suggest a lack of social media presence is better when applying for jobs than having a potentially problematic social media presence. I have long considered giving my potential future children "unsearchable names" so if anyone puts "jack smith" into Google they are unable to get any accurate hits by which to judge them on.

Hmmm... Applying for a job with no social media should be easy, just send a CV to email. However finding a job without using social media is harder.

I can imagine - because I did it about six years ago. And since then I've hired some team members who may or may not have had social media presence but I sincerely doubt that their presence or absence had any impact on being hired. And the same with the candidates not hired -- I don't think it came up at all.

I once applied for a SV company, and recruiter told me I need at least 100 FB friends. I created an account and played some stupid game that gave bonuses for bringing friends. After couple of days I had 400 friends. Manager emphasized my social acumen to everyone's cheer when introducing me to my new team.

Were they bilking you for contacts? Why on earth would that be a requirement? I'm wary of any job that requires me to disclose connection to non-employment related parties. It's a pretty well known scam technique used by places such as multi-level marketing to exploit someone and then toss them when sales channels through their contacts are exhausted.

No, that was a company with ~$5B revenues, they didn't need my contacts. My guess management thought people with many friends would be better team players.

did you read the article? the kids mention that critique

Reply on news.ycombinator.com