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

LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network

interactually.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 215 posts

Re: LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network

#131

Post by Cakez0r »

lmg643 wrote: post #75
michaelochurch wrote: post #72

Y'all know that I worked for Google. On this topic, I can only say good things about the place. When it comes to privacy and PII, Google holds itself to an extremely high standard. Many of these "social" innovations that are popping up on the market place were rejected out-of-hand at Google because it holds itself to an extremely high ethical standard regarding user data, as it actually respects them. I was shocked,…

Amen. The new endorsement feature is typically a sign of "how hard is this person looking for another job" which as a quality signal, may be inversely correlated with their capabilities. LinkedIn seems to be expanding as a magnet for scummy and crappy recruiters. Awesome strategy guys. I love getting unsolicited phone calls from clueless strangers. At least I can ignore emails. I think the business model for LinkedIn…

Endorsements seem to work OK for people in my network. I've never known anybody to actively solicit endorsements and I think that my network's endorsements are fairly accurate. I find that people making large updates to their profile is a better indicator of whether someone is about to leave.

Re: LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network

#132

Post by oillio »

rhizome wrote: post #104
smsm42 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all laws in all countries are worth holding oneself to. For example, Russia has official internet censorship, does it mean Google should now support censorship too because some country has laws about that?

By what legal standard should Google be held, then? Are you really advocating the multinational/Internet companies pick and choose what laws they follow according to their own needs and whims?

In an online chat discussion? Google should be held to the standards of decency described by the poster himself.

Stating, "Google is not good at privacy because they violate some law and I like that law." Is a perfectly valid argument.

Stating, "Google is bad because it doesn't follow a privacy law I won't describe, in a random country I won't name." Does not advance the conversation in any meaniful way.

Re: LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network

#133

Post by interactually »

jdolitsky wrote: post #99
gdltec wrote: post #46

Wow, it looks like interactually's site has been hacked

Yea, I would do something, I was redirected to the wordpress installation screen..

Lesson of the day: Don't go to lunch after posting an article like this. I got it handled as soon as I got back!

Re: LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network

#136

Post by datums »

How was Doug connected ? Doug while only communicating with you via email imported his contacts. His contacts include you. There's the connection. Works similarly on FB. When that business associate imports contacts aka connections, they find you on the other side :) It's really that simple

Re: LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network

#138

Post by throwaway27z »

samstokes wrote: post #98
michaelochurch wrote: post #72

Y'all know that I worked for Google. On this topic, I can only say good things about the place. When it comes to privacy and PII, Google holds itself to an extremely high standard. Many of these "social" innovations that are popping up on the market place were rejected out-of-hand at Google because it holds itself to an extremely high ethical standard regarding user data, as it actually respects them. I was shocked,…

a certain social network gives universal profile access to employees as a perk This is a rather insidious thing to say without naming the network, particularly in a comment on a post about a particular network. Which is it? I know that both Facebook and LinkedIn have similarly strict rules about what user data you can look at.

Throwaway because I learned this while NDAed (on-site interview for an internship over 4 years ago), but Facebook USED to allow employees universal profile access. I heard this from the recruiter who took all of us interviewees to lunch and showed us around, etc. - she said she had used it once to look up some dude she thought was creepy. I'm pretty sure they've since changed their policy. Not sure if OP was referring to Facebook or some other company, though.

Personally I'd argue that this isn't QUITE equivalent to giving employees access to all users' email accounts. That would be a better analogy if they were giving employees access to users' private messages.

Re: LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network

#139

Post by datums »

Caerus wrote: post #11

Facebook does the same thing and it's just as creepy. I closed my "real" account around 2011. A few months back I created a new blank account because I needed access to a couple organization's pages. The only information on that account is my name (a fairly common one) and an email address which is different from the one on my original account. It's possible they have some geographic info linking the two accounts as…

Your ip and browser fingerprint increases the certainty that you maybe be or know the same people

Re: LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network

#140

Post by megrimlock »

michaelochurch wrote: post #89
codegeek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"broken way of doing things. Resumes. Titles and dates of employment. Recommendations. Recruiter spam" How would you do it differently ? Genuinely interested in your opinion on this.

Great question, and it'd take me a long time to answer. My first thought about resumes is that they serve two purposes, one legitimate and one not: (a) social status grading, which is easy for douchebags to game and for extortionists ("do or I'll fire you and give you a bad reference") to abuse. (b) a list of "ask me about " topics where X ranges over areas of professional expertise and interests, so they can probe y…

I like your idea of point allocation (especially if we can include STR, DEX, and INT). But how do we set up the taxonomy of attributes? Particularly with hierarchical relationships (ex: is Machine Learning a subset of AI?) you'd want rough consensus if you're going to run graph algorithms over it and conclude anything beyond data-visualization style "Look, pretty data!" data pron.

That's one of the hilarious things about linkedin attributes; people accrue tags that have vastly different importance depending on context. But hey, it's hard to say no to someone else vouching for my Computer Animation trait, whatever that means. It has the same sort of vague benefit with negligible cost situation as friend graphs. This is why I like your idea of careful scarce allocation, vs. limitless accrual. Information is only meaningful inasmuch as it represents choice.

Post reply on HN