RE: 5 Reasons Why You Should Never Date A Girl With Dyed Hair
The thinking behind my asking the question of considering interviewing/hiring someone who does not have a FB profile (or any other social media) is to what extent are these private accounts looked at like a public utility in society today?
As as far as I am aware, these sites are all run by private, and even more interestingly*, for-profit companies and/or individuals. They are certainly not government entities, though I highly suspect that they coordinate/interact/are "guided" by some pretty nefarious government agencies, probably to a similar extent that the largest OS and internet service providers (I'd guess Microsoft, Apple, Google, among many others) are "encouraged" to cooperate with high-up government agency "officials and their "security" and "information-gathering" agendas."
I use the quotations to point out that this appears all quite murky to me, certainly along the lines of infringement of privacy rights, yet the one thing they all have in common as far as I know is there is no absolute "requirement" to sign up and use them. They are not equivalent to having a driver's license, or are they?
Personally, I have researched and followed the FB and related social media account sites over the years. I see that most all of the owners/operators are highly distrustful and questionably unethical in their handling of what many consider to be their own personal and private information, but which is actually anything but.
Much the same way I view any "smart" phone as in actuality a "slave" phone, I also view social media sites as not even close to worth the risks/loss of liberty/freedoms for such usage.
When working for a company that needs to use these accounts for the job task at hand, I simply ask the company to set up a company-oriented generic accounts for my use on the social platforms deemed necessary for any company business, and proceed from there. Although it has raised a few eyebrows as to convenience and logistics, I have not had a problem with showing the company managers that any requirement to use a private utility containing my personal information beyond that necessary to do the job is an infringement on individual liberty, currently still protected under the Constitution. I have not had a problem conducting business successfully in this way, in fact, I'd argue it's made that conduct much more efficient as the personal distractions are non-existent for me, and business matters are the sole focus of those activities and interactions.
The plain old phone, unencumbered with additional "features" is still the most effective tool for communication that balances individual privacy and corporate and/or public need, in my opinion. Coupled with a company email account used strictly for generic business purposes, one has all the linkage needed to function properly in today's connected world. Although I do wonder how much longer those freedoms will last in this country with the way things are going.
* For those on here who are the big-corporate bashing, generally anti-for-profit and/or private business, pro-government crowd, it is always fascinating to see the extent and zeal with with they embrace these private, for-profit social media companies and applications. Makes me question their whole stance as insincere, or at least selectively judgmental, certainly not well thought out or executed in practice.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2015 11:41 AM by GoodOwl.)
|