They Loved Your G.P.A., Then They Saw Your Tweets
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This is the bit that troubles me. In fact, a similar phenomenon nearly cost me a job while I was in grad school. I applied for a position with the CS department, and my future boss had received some emails from a guy with the same first and last name, but different middle initial that were, let's just say, quite unprofessional. It's only because I was told and given the chance to point it out that I got the job.
I could probably have lived without the job in this case (it was only a 20-hour a week student job, after all), but what if it weren't? My name is common enough that unless you know something about me beyond first and last name, you won't find me on the internet. I'm practically John Smith (not my real name, obviously).
And yet it works quite well for YC to filter out potential applicants. So there are some circumstances in which social media provides signal.
Maybe making it impossible for someone to forge your identity is the way forward. It's certainly an uncomfortable thought that all future children will be judged by what they say as young teenagers, though. But maybe it's inevitable.
They'll just have to mature more quickly. Adolescence is an artificial invention anyway.
Therefore, at least give the guy the chance to explain those posts.
Unjustifiably trashing people's names is already a recognized offense, it is called "slander" or "libel", depending on whether it is spoken or written.
There are two defenses to this, one that the comments were 'fair comment", i.e. not malicious falsehoods, and the other is "freedom of speech". These defenses are variously successful in different jurisdictions.
In the UK, for example, it is very hard to defend yourself from an accusation of libel, since you have to prove that what you said was factually correct, which is of course easy if that is the case, and you have proof to hand. However if a good lawyer reduces your "facts" to mere hearsay, and then you are in trouble.
In the US "freedom of speech" usually trumps everything else, and you rarely get into trouble for lying about another person.
1. that the statements made were false
2. that the person making them had malicious intent (i.e. they knew the statements were false and weren't simply joking)
3. some demonstrable harm
I.e. saying "Fred is a jerk" isn't slander, because that's a statement of opinion, not a fact. Saying "Fred is a thief and a drunk" is a statement of fact.
In particular, truth is usually a complete defence to defamation, but not always. Sometimes it is only a partial defence and sometimes it is not a defence at all.
How so?
Even better? There's a pmiller and you're pmiller2..
But that wasn't actually my point. My point was that starting with just a name, you're going to end up with precisely nothing about me. Even knowing my email address and everything on my LinkedIn page doesn't get you really anywhere. What you find ends up being a lot of info on people who are clearly not me. I'm pretty effectively hidden in plain sight.
I've had trouble with flying because of it, I've had some difficult explaining to do when some overly broad background checks come back (matching on first/last/DOB), problem with collection agencies, and the usual problem of it being impossible for any agency to find me by first/last (a double edged sword).
It's frustrating but its also a shield, so long as no one can bridge the gap between my real name and the nickname I use online, I'm safe from this kind of digging, I feel sorry for those who're not.
It's an invasion of privacy, because of how ubiquitous social media has become, its a bit like requiring you to submit transcripts of all your interactions with your friends over the last 6 months or whatever.
"Someone who provided essential support during my troubles told me a funny story. He was posting information about me on Facebook, and up popped an ad for USC's online Masters of Arts in Teaching program. On impulse, he called the recruiter to see if they had any sort of ideological requirements and (quoting from his note) "asked him if USC enforces belief in specific values like 'equity' or that 'everyone can learn,' and [the recruiter] assured me that one of the admission essays is precisely on this point and that people with unsuitable views are weeded out!" "
And Harvard has made it clear that they do not permit questioning certain progressive ideas for which the evidence is not persuasive[2]. In the popular consciousness, you may see these sentiments expressed as "you have the right to speech, but not the right to hate speech" or "you don't have the right to be offensive" or "if you say offensive things, expect consequences".
[1] http://www.nas.org/articles/Achievement_Gap_Politics
[2] http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/11/the_slow_d...
I hope somebody some day comes up with a better way to keep threads of identity separate, so you don't face the situation where you're denied work or university because you woke up in a bad mood one day and said something angry about someone online to a friend of yours.
When I have kids someday I'll remind them to post like everyone in the whole world is going to read it.
I choose not to do it at all and assume everything I post can be seen by people who are closest to me: family, friends, employers, people in the same city, etc. It works well. And heck, if you don't do it, it may even change the way you think about people in general (so there isn't so much need for expletives.
But today, it's not the major media you have to worry about, initially at least...random Tweeters and Facebookers could ruin your life through retweets and wall posts. Here's one that happened a couple weeks ago...the person in question not only had a controversial Halloween costume, but at some point in time, when she was just another random person, she had tweeted a photo of her driver's license:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/what-happens-when-you-...
> You offended my delicate sensibilities, now you shall burn!
Signed, The Thought Police.
______
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k72845&pageid=i...
Firstly, you're posting a Harvard FAS resolution, but Harvard isn't even mentioned in the NYT article. I don't know why you bring it up.
Secondly, I think it should be pretty obvious that there's a difference between being able to say what you want as a faculty member or enrolled student and being able to say what you want as an applicant.
There are lots of good arguments as to why college admissions officers shouldn't be using social media to weigh up an application, but I'm not sure the argument you're making is one of them.
(2) We select out those who exercise their rights.
(3) We're f@_king hypocrites.
(4) Because of (3) You are only free to express our views (2) or no views.
_______________
Empirical example: Its worth doing some research on Elena Kagan. [In 2001, she was named a full professor and in 2003 was named Dean of the Law School by Harvard University President]. Now on SCOTUS.
"because we are a community committed to reason and rational discourse"
Imagine a candidate for the U.S. Senate who has never taken a public stand on almost any policy issue. Imagine that her campaign consists of asking people for their support because, according to friends and colleagues, the candidate is smart, fair, and good to others. When her friends are asked what her views are on various political matters, they reply that they don't know-but that they're confident she'd make an excellent senator.
That worked, well.
_______________
Sounds like someone who really values free speech, huh?
________________
But this is not cherry picking, its common TCW:
Kagan Follows Precedent by Offering Few Opinions (NYT)
Solicitor General Holds Views Close To Her Chest (NPR)
The Lingering Mystery Around Elena Kagan (CBS)
I'm quoting the official position of the university. Their policy is not a government policy. It is a policy that governs speech in the university environment.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic847338.files/FS_G...
So, I would say about your comment: it might not be 'false', but to the extent its relevant it is only so narrowly (ie, its 'trivially' true).
You may find what I said trivially true. I find what you say somewhere much closer to 'dishonest'.
The great thing about irony, is that it makes no such pretense.
____________
i·ro·ny ˈīrənē,ˈiərnē/ noun noun: irony
1. the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
(2) We select out those who exercise their rights.
Kagan is an example of #2. Nobody is arguing that Harvard taught her to hate freedom of expression. They play it a bit more subtle.
That's why it's nice to be independent.
[1] http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/11/the_slow_d...
But in this modern day and age, when such discrimination is considered faux pass (or so I hope), maybe it's time to make the admission system be based on standardized tests, instead of the unquantifiable feel of an admission officer. While such tests have their own set of problems, they would remove some of the discrimination hidden in the current process.
Certain genetic groups have lower test scores for biological reasons. Admissions officers are given wide latitude for the purpose of admiting token applicants from those groups.
Ironically, admissions screening was started to keep out the European jews, who are smarter than average and we know some of the genetic variations that do it. One wonders what the universities were thinking, both wanting to keep them out and choosing such a dumb scheme.
Some politicians call this racism, which is probably why my comment was downvoted. Nothing is further from the truth. The whole point is that less-intelligent people score equally low regardless of race.
Why different groups should have different intelligence is probably a result of evolution. It takes a better grade of ancestors to survive 20,000 years of European farming and winters.
And it is just question of time before 'personality nuke' will appear. Give us list of your competitors and negative traits they should be associated with. In just three days we will make sure none of them will pass.
There is only solution: send ling to facebook and twitter profile together with your application (in email signature). Personal PGP certificate should be also norm.
The solution here is to carefully and consistently remind people, especially children, about this.