Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 323 posts

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#151

Post by syshum »

brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

So as some who has never, and will never use Twitter I wonder what my performance grade would be?

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#152

Post by wolco »

Aloha wrote: post #33
brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

I'm curious about something, would most of the people who are aghast at this be as aghast at it if this had flagged someone who was racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic? I would be, but I wonder if I'm in the minority or not. This pilfering of your digital history is on the order of what's needed to get a security clearance - where it's at least somewhat justified. There is no case where I can see this being ju…

I would be in thoery but I'm not aghast at all. This is a great opportunity to remind people that the hacker in hackernews needs to shine.

Start creating your fake profile now. Start preparing to game your online profile to navigate this new normal.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#153

Post by heavyset_go »

coldtea wrote: post #110
komali2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?

> "Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other conside…

> And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots...

There were plenty of claimed religious justifications for businesses who wanted to discriminate against mixed race couples, but in the end, that didn't really matter. There is no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#154

Post by palferrari »

0xff00ffee wrote: post #52

I stopped using my real name on social media in 2016. I wonder if Fama can still associate my posts with my fake names. Because if so, holy shit I'm fucked for dozens of reasons. I guess they could ask Reddit and Hacker News for IP logs of user ip addresses, especially since HN doesn't delete accounts.

They aren’t law enforcement, I doubt they’d get cooperation

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#155

Post by arielweisberg »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #134
aloknnikhil wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like Hire Right ( https://www.hireright.com/ ) uses this. And a lot of the FANG tier companies use Hire Right. That'd a exclude a lot of the tech companies.

HireRight almost failed my background check because I got the month wrong on my graduation from high school. I legitimately don't understand why a background check has to be this in-depth. Edit: actually I think it was elementary school. Even worse.

You are allowed to request a copy of your background check from HireRight. Get it, save it, and use it to fill out future background checks.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#156

Post by Waterluvian »

t0astbread wrote: post #145
Waterluvian wrote: post #69

That's wild. I got my first ever background check to volunteer at a high school. The report was three checkboxes indicating "we found nothing wrong"

A background check before volunteering? Isn't that extremely counterproductive for getting applications?

Maybe. I work with children and the disabled so that's just how it is. I even had to pay $15.

But there hasn't been a shortage of volunteers.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#157

Post by sneak »

ianai wrote: post #135
sneak wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as there are other places to work, we can and should avail ourselves of them.

There are entire industries insulated enough for illegal HR practices to prevail. “Other places to work” line of reasoning is tone deaf and functionally abusive.

I’m not sure how privately holding the opinion “anyone who can choose non-abusive employers should choose them over abusive ones” is itself “functionally abusive”.

Freedom of association is a powerful tool.

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#158

Post by jlg23 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #125
komali2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?

Thinking that anyone disagreeing with my opinions want certain people exterminated is not healthy. There are not genocidal maniacs behind every tweet that annoys us. My best guess is that it's a form of Motivated Reasoning for "striking back first" at these imagined monsters.

Death to all fatalists!

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#159

Post by maverick2007 »

slg wrote: post #101
brenden2 wrote: post #4

Here's the company doing this: https://fama.io/ The idea that you can assess someone's workplace performance based on automated screening of their tweets is utterly absurd. If anyone works somewhere that uses this tool, or anything similar to it, you should run far, far away from that company. This is a terrible precedent, and much too much Orwellian for my taste. EDIT: somewhat related, but a while back I made a Twi…

I am curious if people here think there is a different standard for high profile hires. This happens all the time in the entertainment industry. There are plenty of examples of PR disasters that occur when someone's old offensive tweets are resurfaced. Knowing about those tweets beforehand allows a company to either advise that the tweets are deleted or that the potential for future PR problems means someone else sho…

And sports too! Josh Hader from the Brewers and Kyler Murray from the Cardinals are the first ones to mind. It'd be interesting to see how much vetting goes into this before the draft and how much of a hard no certain things are

Re: I had to get a background check for my job; the report is a 300 page pdf

#160

Post by coldtea »

heavyset_go wrote: post #153
coldtea wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other conside…

> And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots... There were plenty of claimed religious justifications for b…

>There were plenty of claimed religious justifications for businesses who wanted to discriminate against mixed race couples, but in the end, that didn't really matter. There is no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself.

Sure, there's "no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself". But here the word bigotry is used twice in a weaselly way, making it a circular argument, that assumes what it should instead prove.

There's, however, a functional difference between bigotry and a nuanced position that touches on sex/race/etc relations - which was my point.

Except if nobody can have a position in sex/race/etc matters that goes against what an enlightened minority holds, except if they are bigots. Even if there are members of said sex, race, etc agree with the person -- and the "enlightened minority" is often a self-appointed hodgepodge of noise-making people.

Post reply on HN