We plan to add more engineering-specific sections to the profiles. I think there's a lot of room to just display what matters to engineers/eng hiring managers better. Then we want to use the profiles to push the industry to look beyond traditional credentials (school, work at top companies). Recruiters say that they want to do this, but we need to get them off of LinkedIn where everything is designed around the traditional credentials.

You know what, it's clear that you've put a lot of thought into this from the product & strategy side, and these are genuinely great ideas with significant potential social impact that are worth exploring further.

But it really is a shame that from this incident, myself and many others will no longer be willing to trust you and your team with the data needed to execute on these ideas.

At the end of the day, we entrusted you with extremely sensitive data in order to use your service that could threaten our very livelihoods if exposed. Your choosing to expose this data without explicit opt-in shows an alarming lack of empathy for your users and that you were never deserving of this trust.

> I think there's a lot of room to just display what matters to engineers/eng hiring managers better.

There's no doubt a lot of truth there.

What matters a lot to engineering managers are the answers to questions like "What other roles is this candidate interviewing for?" "How well did this candidate do in their Triplebyte interviews for our competitors?" "What are the salary ranges of other roles this candidate has clicked on or applied for?"

Will that also form part of every user's public profile, with the same "1 week to opt out, 30 days to enable opt out" process? Or will that data only be available to hiring managers with Triplebyte Premium accounts?

1/2 of the triplebyte recruiters that reach out to me don't even reply

That’s an interesting thought, but I haven’t seen any change in both attitude and the interviewing process from companies on TripleByte. Do you have any hard numbers showing that companies are willing to walk the walk instead of just talk?

why ignore the legal precedent? it's more than personal opinion in every sense of the word, it's an already hashed-out question that had a very clear consequence. "Recruiters say" doesn't even come into the conversation -- this has been tried before. do you have a legal team? do you pay them more than pocket change? god help you, but at a certain point you chose to ignore the book