Your example provides its own counterexample. The same individual has encountered persistent questioning over the specifics of his birthplace, despite ample documentation substantiating his claims.

How information is interpreted depends very much on who's interpreting it and what their objectives are.

Hiring processes are notoriously opaque. Corporations are, very literally, machines for creating one-way flows of liability, shielding management and owners at the expense of the public and workers. What do you think the term "limited liability corporation" refers to? How many NDAs have you signed? What are your workplace's rules regarding disclosure of employment terms and/or compensation?

Perhaps, but it's hard to imagine private-citizen Obama not getting hired because of his birth certificate.

It's far too easy to imagine private-citizen Obama not getting hired because of his birth certificate, legally, as recently as 1964.

There's a credible case to be made that much of the present opposition he faces stems from the same root cause.

I agree - life is becoming more transparent, but this is corresponding with a collective growth in our emotional intelligence, so hopefully as we share more we're also more empathetic to the human condition. We none of us are perfect. The article raises important points about the legacy of our digital footprint…but I'm not sure how self-censored I'd like to see the online world. If we were all too scared of the ramifications from sharing our thoughts and experiences online I'd miss the rich tapestry of debate and opinions!

Thats drastically overestimating the ability of people to change/adapt.

I recall a comment once made - "statistics is the most important creation of our time, I foresee a future where even the simplest of men would have a basic knowledge of the field."

It hasn't happened, nor will it ever. People are born constantly into this world, and the large amount of development required to get to a point where you have sufficient emotional intelligence is a path littered with mistakes.

By the time you have a cohort stable enough and mature enough, you also have a counter cohort learning from the first obvious mistakes, or arguing against the older group.

By 'collective growth in our emotional intelligence' I meant that because of factors like the internet, mobiles, globalization and the speedy virality of ideas, for a lot of the world their frame-of-reference is so much broader. Our ways of communicating and discussing ideas are broader. We network quicker.

So I agree that we're not going to meet some 'perfect state' of emotional intelligence, but I like to think that in the context of today, our ability to process and empathize with a diversity of thought is, on the collective, greater.

The Gen Ys that didn't overshare will make it up the ladder. The highest ones and those seeking office will pay to have their online records expunged, hoping they can avoid blackmail. The oversharers will be ruthlessly exploited.

In the Victorian era, drug use was not nearly as stigmatized as it is today, but sexuality was deeply hidden. You didn't dare talk about your sex life, but use of opium for purposes we'd call "recreational" was commonplace.

People are becoming more tolerant of minor drug indiscretions (cocaine is a nasty drug, but he didn't use it as an adult or let it become a habit, so I'd count it as a relatively minor issue) because society was at an extreme of intolerance on that issue, but I don't think that's a general trend in social acceptance of error.

IMO, that is the right solution that I hope will happen.