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

241–250 of 323 posts

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

#241

Post by brewdad »

granshaw wrote: post #194
cabaalis wrote: post #170

It seems against the grain on this board, but people actually think airing all their little annoyances publicly online is a good idea that will never affect their actual lives?

You’re missing the point. This is a bad algorithm that is in effect nothing but false positives, and not even on his posts, but on posts he _liked_ Do you want to live in a world where you don’t dare to do or say _anything_ online that can be traced back to you, cause now you even have to factor in shitty algorithms like these? I sure don’t.

Exactly. I tend to browse Twitter on my phone. Judging by the number of times I've accidentally clicked on a tweet while scrolling, I'm sure I've accidentally "liked" more than a few tweets that I find abhorrent.

I'd hate to think that such mis-touches would harm me personally or professionally.

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

#242

Post by vntok »

allovernow wrote: post #139
vntok wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"BIG DICK ENERGY" is arguably a childish and immature post. Someone liking that post is arguably being childish and immature in their minds at that time . Of course, a single like of a childish or immature post or meme is a meaningless data point (one could like it to laugh at it). So are 5 likes. So are 10 likes. However, say that twitter account regulary likes memes that are only shared in a particular incels-commu…

This is exactly the kind of hysteria that will tear society apart. The types of jokes a person shares and enjoys outside of the office by and large are not a reflection of character, even when they are racist, sexist, or some other -ist . In fact that's the very reason that they are funny, because they are counter to norms. There's nothing immature or childish about this if you're not oversocialized. Believe it or no…

> Your post is a perfect example of a dangerous overreaction. Suddenly liking the wrong post makes me an "incel" and keeps me from contributing to society. Isn't that a little crazy?

Please read comments before responding to them. I specifically wrote that "liking the wrong post" means nothing. You know what does mean something? You liking only wrong posts.

That said, if most of your social media presence is you abusing others, trolling companies, liking revisionist graphs or retweeting pepe-the-frog memes about how Seth Rich was murdered by Hillary Clinton or how the world is run by Jews... well that brands you in a way that most sane people will avoid you.

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

#243

Post by thebean11 »

Jupe wrote: post #111

Get used to it... this is the world we (the tech community) helped, even pushed, to create. I ask myself, would a FAANG company hire someone who doesn't actively tweet? Somehow, I doubt it. It is increasingly impossible to live in the modern world without using the internet. Try buying something these days; many of the brick-and-mortar stores are disappearing. Try getting a job without using online services. Try buyi…

> I ask myself, would a FAANG company hire someone who doesn't actively tweet? Somehow, I doubt it.

Why do you doubt it? Super common.

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

#244

Post by brewdad »

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?

My school district requires all volunteers to undergo a background check renewed every 2 years. I think it's pretty basic, mainly just criminal history. It's really a CYA for the district should anything harmful occur between a student and volunteer.

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

#245

Post by cheez »

grecy wrote: post #80
appleiigs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a related note, I declined a job interview when a company wanted to do the interview process via HireVue. Has the Orwellian telescreen feel. The process includes candidate recording interview responses and uploading them for AI to evaluate. HR must not realize that as part of the interview, candidates are also evaluating whether the company is a good place to work at.

> HR must not realize that as part of the interview, candidates are also evaluating whether the company is a good place to work at. In many fields outside software people with no healthcare, student debt, a mortgage and car payments are screwed. As long as the system keeps the people down, they won't have a choice but to take that job, no matter the Orwellian nature

It's so easy to stay out of this. Keep up your health and don't take on debt. Gives you a lot of freedom.

https://sivers.org/richand

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

#246

Post by yowlingcat »

vntok wrote: post #238
yowlingcat wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a toddler level correlation/causation conflation and misunderstanding of psychological motivations and a thorough lack of understanding of humor. To assign so much meaning to a like is to presume to understand its meaning. But what if the like itself is ironic, sarcastic, or merely a bookmark? This kind of literalist interpretation is laughable, and will surely be looked upon in the future as a cringe-worthy…

Please read my comment again. One like from your personal Twitter account on a nazi post or conspiracy theory meme means nothing. 90% likes on such content categories from your personal account? That means a lot about you.

I understand your comment just fine the first time I read it. It's not the first time that someone's come up with such a hare-brained idea, and it's certainly not the last. If you are presuming that an account "liking" a post means that 1) the account is genuine reflection of what a person believes deep down and 2) that they are using the "like" action to indicate that they agree with the post, then you're making a lot of assumptions that are rarely true. In fact, they're so rarely true that at a certain point, Facebook added reactions because the "like" button was so noisy!

The idea one can judge what someone thinks based on context-free metadata without actually talking to them, reading what they've written, or judging what they've done is hilarious. It's so fundamentally at odds with how human beings work and think (specifically with respect to satire[0] and irony) that it beggars belief. If Charlie Chaplin were alive today and acting out one of his greatest satires[1] on Twitter, a certain well known German dictator would be part of the punchline. But so too would be you, for taking it at face value.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#Social_and_psychologica...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Chaplin#The_Great_Dict...

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

#247

Post by cameronbrown »

Jupe wrote: post #111

Get used to it... this is the world we (the tech community) helped, even pushed, to create. I ask myself, would a FAANG company hire someone who doesn't actively tweet? Somehow, I doubt it. It is increasingly impossible to live in the modern world without using the internet. Try buying something these days; many of the brick-and-mortar stores are disappearing. Try getting a job without using online services. Try buyi…

You do realise Twitter is a massive bubble right? Actively hiring from that pool only will cause the tech industry to be far more homogeneous in thinking - something it desperately needs to get away from.

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

#248

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

sneak wrote: post #157
ianai wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that it gets advocated as "anyone can choose non-abusive employers over abusive ones", which is simply false.

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

#249

Post by syspec »

aloknnikhil wrote: post #36
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…

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.

Just to add, when I was interviewing at my current company (FANG), hireright has the nerve to call my THEN employer and try to verify my salary information!

I

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

#250

Post by commandlinefan »

grecy wrote: post #80
appleiigs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a related note, I declined a job interview when a company wanted to do the interview process via HireVue. Has the Orwellian telescreen feel. The process includes candidate recording interview responses and uploading them for AI to evaluate. HR must not realize that as part of the interview, candidates are also evaluating whether the company is a good place to work at.

> HR must not realize that as part of the interview, candidates are also evaluating whether the company is a good place to work at. In many fields outside software people with no healthcare, student debt, a mortgage and car payments are screwed. As long as the system keeps the people down, they won't have a choice but to take that job, no matter the Orwellian nature

> outside software

Hell, inside it, too. I always figured that, although I morally oppose this sort of demeaning treatment, my education and experience in software would at least protect me from it. I thought that right up until my company shut down without warning a couple of years ago and I was out of work. I was a little shocked by how poorly job candidates were treated: hirevue, mandatory contract-to-hire “trial periods”, background checks (the background check I did for the job I have now demanded references for jobs all the way back to 1998!). I can’t even imagine what it’s like for the people who aren’t “in demand”.

Post reply on HN