It doesn't work like that. On PT I listened to an HR employee laughing to a friend about how great Facebook is for them. A story she told was of a recent job applicant, they looked up his facebook profile and found he'd posted some weekend party photos. She laughed about how you could "tell from the eyes" he was on drugs... "needless to say, he didn't get the job".
People in the real world are penalized when they don't keep work/play identities separate — especially beady-eyed people!
(Conversely, if my facebook profile ever fills up with cats and doctored photos of me climbing K2, or helping out at the local orphanage, you'll know I'm applying for a job somewhere with an HR department)
In the tech industry, perhaps not so much of an issue. But, for example, I'm sure many K-8 teachers have a "work" self and a "weekend" self that don't (and/or shouldn't) mix well.
I actually have a secondary-school teacher as a Facebook friend and she does in fact selectively publish things to different groups, because she has some of her students as friends on Facebook.
Most people act more formally at work than they would otherwise. It's the same idea.
> And if your boss objects to your weekend parties, then (unless we're talking PR-heavy industry, you being in the spotlight) you should consider changing jobs. Caring about such issues is as sign of serious problems in the company.
If you have a secure job, or are important to the company, maybe.
Many younger people are not so secure in their jobs, however, or live in a highly religious area, or both. A Facebook user still dependent on their strict parents could also be ruined by a stray pic.
It's pretty easy on Facebook to restrict your social photos to only your social friends.
Here's one: Gay people. There are many places where you can be fired for being gay.
> you should consider changing jobs.
That isn't always possible.
Multiple identities are incredibly important to anybody in a minority that is threatened by their local mainstream culture. Black people in may areas (even today), gay or lesbian people in many parts of the world, and trans people just about anywhere[1] are some obvious examples. There are numerous others, which bring varying amounts of risk if exposed publicly.
These people are often forced to put on a facade when in public, to avoid the risk of being fired (only a few of these are protected classes), beaten, or even killed. The internet has created a space where these people can be themselves... as long as it doesn't connect back to their real name and identity.
Yes, leaving a job is a good way to avoid a bigoted manager, but that isn't an option for everybody. Your boss isn't the only threat, either: it wasn't that long ago that being openly gay could get you lynched in some areas.
This comes down to the basic concept of privacy. I recommend Dan Geer's definition[2] of privacy in light of modern technology:
Privacy used to be proportional to that which it is impossible to observe
or that which can be observed but not identified. No more -- what is today
observable and identifiable kills both privacy as impossible-to-observe and
privacy as impossible-to-identify, so what might be an alternative? If you
are an optimist or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules
of data procedure administered by a government you trust or control. If you
are a pessimist or a hacker/maker, then your answer will tend towards the
operational, and your definition of a state of privacy will be my definition:
the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself.
It is nice to believe that we are past these problems. I'm often thankful that I have the privilege to live in California, which has been very accepting of diversity. Unfortunately, we haven't solved all of these problems, and they are not going to be solved in the near future. Sometimes an optimist or apparatchick insists that forcing everybody into the public so nothing is hidden and privacy no longer exists will somehow eradicate bigotry and discrimination. Well, bigots are often proud of their beliefs, and most people don't consider the consequences anyway; these problems are not solved by magical thinking.
[1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/90519/t...
I guess part of my confusion stemmed from the fact that multiple identities on Facebook are hard and risky, so they become a pretty bad idea. Facebook seriously sucks for multiple identities, real-name-policy or not. You really need different accounts. Otherwise you need to get obsessive-compulsive about every privacy setting out there - who do you share with, who can view it, who can tag/mention you, etc. And then you lose anyway because one of your friends copy-pasted your post to a wider circle, or uploaded a photo with you and someone from the "wrong" side of your social graph recognizes it, etc. It's pretty much OPSEC 101 - the different lives you're having shouldn't mix at all because someone, somewhen, will screw up.
Also, you'd be surprised how broken the post range limits still are, if you know what to do (Facebook has significantly improved that over the last year or two, but there are still bugs).
> It is nice to believe that we are past these problems. I'm often thankful that I have the privilege to live in California, which has been very accepting of diversity. Unfortunately, we haven't solved all of these problems, and they are not going to be solved in the near future.
Yeah, this is what bit me.
> Sometimes an optimist or apparatchick insists that forcing everybody into the public so nothing is hidden and privacy no longer exists will somehow eradicate bigotry and discrimination. Well, bigots are often proud of their beliefs, and most people don't consider the consequences anyway; these problems are not solved by magical thinking.
I sometimes consider if what apparatchicks propose isn't in fact our best option. I usually refer to it as "privacy or progress, pick one", when pointing out the social and scientific benefits of the data we forgo when insisting on fighting every form of mass monitoring. Note, I'm only entertaining this thought - I'm not convinced yet either way, but the way the privacy discussion is today, the issue is terribly one-sided.
You mentioned bigots being proud of being bigots. This seriously worries me. I think the society could handle going (back?) to zero-privacy mode, but the more I think of it and see people being proud of their ignorance, the more I fear it would end in civil wars over really stupid things.
I think Facebook primarily targets the second one. Though personally, I find the whole concept of this type of multiple identities weird. Why should I present a different identity at work than I do in personal affairs?
And if your boss objects to your weekend parties, then (unless we're talking PR-heavy industry, you being in the spotlight) you should consider changing jobs. Caring about such issues is as sign of serious problems in the company.