Yes. And that does not make it an unfair hiring practice, just FYI. Speaking for US based companies, they are under a legal obligation for “safe“ hiring. So if something came up in your social media feeds that made them concerned about physical or psychological safety in the workplace, that is a legitimate reason to not hire you.

Also, and this is a little bit more of a gray area, they are looking for people that are going to fit well with who is already on staff. The reverse of that is also true, you want to work with people that you can connect with and form a cohesive team. An example of a legitimate use of social media for this would be maybe someone who is hiring a counselor for teenagers, and your social media shows you out smoking pot (legally) or getting drunk every other weekend. This doesn’t necessarily affect your ability to do the job but with lots of teenagers having drug and alcohol issues, a hiring manager could think maybe this isn’t the best connection for a career at this specific point in your life.

Social media goes both ways-vet a company for their online presence. If you want to work for a diverse and inclusive company but their social media only has white faces… Well you have to ask yourself what is the truth here. Present yourself on social media as you want to be seen, and if you NEED to present controversial content do it under an AKA if you are worried about your job prospects.

Yes. Employers have people on staff to do exactly this. (Teachers warned you about this over and over and over.)

Do you know why employers have people on staff to research a person’s online persona?

They want to judge applicant suitability.

If a guy posts racist material and jokes, rape jokes, descriptions of black-out drinking events ending up in police chases, talks about driving drunk or stoned, or if the guy is involved in serious and nasty girlfriend or family drama online where he discredits and insults other people, or if he threatens people, gets into fights, brags about getting in fights with strangers, performs rap with the crudest anti-woman lyrics, has poor taste in pranks, degrades his former employer(s), distributes nudes of minors for fun (this is distribution of child porn), complains about his co-workers, laughs about people breaking the law and getting away with it, and has friends who are garbage, etc., then the manager has better information to determine if the person will be a good fit in the company. People with these proven characteristics are not a good fit in most companies.

For example, a guy who clearly hates women and thinks rape is funny won’t be placed to work with women. He isn’t trustworthy and his judgement is skewed. He won’t be hired.

if the guy is clearly racist, he won’t be hired.

Online is public space. What you do there becomes public knowledge. You were warned.

Can future employers simply not hire a person just based off their social media?

[blinks]

Seriously? Where have you been the past decade?

This has been going on a long time. I don’t understand what’s so surprising about this.

If you post something on social media for the world to see, and the world sees it…how is that anyone’s fault but your own?

It depends on the nature of the job. In many creative or public-facing jobs, having a strong social-media presence can be an important asset in a candidate’s overall portfolio.

That’s obviously true if the job opening is “Social Media Director.” But it’s also quite true for brand evangelists, community-outreach specialists, etc. And it’s somewhat true for journalists, theater directors, authors, recruiters, certain types of consultants, etc.

When I went hunting for a book contract in 2015, there was a stage at which my agent was setting up email exchanges or phone calls with a variety of editors who might or might not want to bid for the right to publish this book-to-be. In just about every serious conversation, the editors spent some time wanting to know what I was doing on social media, how that might help the eventual marketing of the book, etc.

I can’t remember if they pulled up specific posts from Twitter, LinkedIn, Quora, etc. — but their line of inquiry was taking them that way. To me, that’s fair. No publishing house has a 100% reliable formula for connecting new books to a wide readership. If potential authors have some unique channels at their disposal, that can make us more appealing. in terms of who to “hire.”

It depends on the job in question. If you’re applying for a job flipping burgers or pouring coffee, no hiring manager is really going to care about your social media activity. If, however, you’re much higher up on the career ladder, your social media presence can make or break your candidacy. It’s not always the hiring manager who’s going to check. In fact, it’s rarely the hiring manager who’s doing the checking. If the position is significant, background checking companies can, and will do a deep dive into your social media history. And you’d be amazed at how much stuff they dig up stuff on you, and even some things that you were sure you deleted.

Before you begin a job search, carefully and thoroughly scrub your social media history. Better yet, have a professional do it for you. I’m not going to pimp any particular company here, but there are some really good ones out there. No one can remove everything, however.

Better yet, start today by never, ever posting anything that could even be mistaken for a socially unacceptable behavior of any kind, ever again. Before you click “Post”, ask yourself if this is something you’d be proud to have your mom or your grandma see on the 6 o’clock news. And make sure that you’re never in a position where a buddy can snap that hilarious photo of “drunk you” tucking bills into a stripper’s g-string. Just. Don’t. Do. It.

The job you save may be your own.

LinkedIn is my second favorite way of finding qualified candidates. Nothing every beats your network because you eliminate risk when someone you know introduces you to a qualified candidate.

But LinkedIn is an excellent screening tool to find candidates. You can do some very targeted searches to quickly get a qualified list of candidates.

Let’s say your searching for an Engineering Director in your industry in the San Francisco Bay Area. You can search for exactly that:

Then you get a list of potential candidates:

But 3450 is way too many to sort through. So you can narrow this list down further by looking for people at a specific company. I’ll choose Maxim:

Perfect. 57 is a good number to look for exactly what I want. I can repeat this narrow search for other competitors.

If you have a good network, LinkedIn eliminates the need to use contingency search firms. You’ll probably get better candidates if you do it yourself. And you don’t have to pay extra to a recruiter.

As a Human Resources Professional, it depends on the industry or business, and the nature of the job. I’ve worked in Human Resources in the healthcare and financial industries where checking an applicant’s social media was not performed.

Social media screening is essentially tapping into a job candidate's private life. It can reveal information about protected characteristics such as one’s age, race, nationality, disabilities, gender, religion, etc. which could bias pre-employment and employee hiring decisions, which is why the companies I’ve worked for do not use it.

If social media is included in pre-employment background checks, it is not possible to completely separate truth from fiction. And many states have already passed, or are considering, legislation that prohibits employers from requiring a potential (or current) employee to share their social media.

I am also keenly aware that people pretend well and:

Candidates with high emotional intelligence and good judgment are “usually” those who are able to manage their emotions well, and are able to demonstrate that during the interview. There are also other ways to vet a candidate without checking their social media - such as asking open ended questions to learn more about the candidate, how they handle themselves during the interview, verifying their references, and conducting a criminal background investigation.

If you are being asked for your username and password, it may be a violation of your rights to privacy in your state.

I’m not sure what you mean by “do you believe”: virtually every employer in the United States with more than 5 employees runs comprehensive background checks on prospective employees. That includes AI-driven analysis of a candidate’s social media presence since each account opened, and it isn’t limited to the accounts candidates provide hiring firms when asked.

And I’ll anticipate the next question everybody asks: No, you can’t hide your social accounts with extremist or unacceptable content, and you can’t give them fake account names. In fact, listing only some of your social media or providing a second account you rarely use is a good way to lose a job you’ve just been offered. The meta-searching automated tools available to employers find you online by who you know and interact with online, and they’re pretty scarily accurate.

If the accounts you attempt to conceal (or those you disclose) are filled with especially unacceptable content like COVID-19 disinformation, racist or hateful posts, the more extreme MAGA memes, sexually degrading or any content a legitimate employer wouldn’t be comfortable having associated with their brand, you’re going to have a very difficult time finding even an entry level job, even in this heated job market.

I used to try desperately explaining to people who spread “election fraud” disinformation, anti-vaccine lies, even mildly racist content or just general trolling that their Constitutional right to free expression is absolute, but employers have the right to not hire people they believe are extremists, spreading lies or causing physical harm to people through their public social media accounts.

Now I don’t even bother, because the people who are engaged in COVID-19 denial are also in denial about the long-term harm they’re doing to their financial and career futures. In the US, anyway, who you are online stays with you forever. In ten years, you may have more evolved views on politics or vaccines, but a past that includes being one of the people who extended the pandemic and made life worse for so many will keep closing doors in your face for decades to come.

That is a fact.

I think that an increasing number of companies do. My former employer was vague about whether they did or not, but my sense was that they probably did.

What do they look for? Probably varies from company to company. If I was looking (and I would if I was hiring someone), I’d look for:

• A person who seems to take extremist views, whether religious, political or otherwise.
• Similarly, a person who seems to need to work religion or politics into discussions that aren’t about religion or politics.
• A person who expresses racist, sexist, etc. views even if disguised as some “just asking for a friend” type dodge. I’d look for things like, “Well, I’m not a homophobe, but …” or “I’m not really an antisemite, however …”.
• A person who takes a position and then ignores anyone who disagrees. That would be especially true if their entire defense for their position is something like “because I said so.” I would make exception if those disagreeing appear to be extremists in that I can understand someone ignoring an out there somewhere comment.
• A person who appears to mostly repeat what others say with no critical evaluation. Every job I’ve supervised has required a person who needs almost no supervision, is self-training and can do very advanced critical thinking. This is not a person who repeats what he or she hears, especially if from some supposed “authority” without a second thought.
• Overall, does the person seem to take a balanced approach to things. My best employees had a wide variety of interests and an absolute ability to keep their thoughts to themselves when that was needed.

First, a definition of cyberstalking:

Cyberstalking is a type of online harassment that involves using electronic means to stalk a victim, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. All states have anti-stalking laws, but the legal definitions vary. Some state laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim.

cyber-stalking or cyber-harassment - Bing

Given this, I seriously doubt that many companies (as an entity) cyber-stalk employees. That is, an executive or other acting on behalf of the company does things (threats, malicious behaviors) considered stalking.

It may be that some individual decides to stalk you, but that’s between you and them. The company can’t control what someone decides to do on line unless they’re using the company system to do it.

If you more mean “can an employer read everything I post on social media?” Sure, and so can I, your mom, your religious leader and so on. That crosses over into stalking only if there’s negative interaction.

And “can an employer fire me for what I post on social media?” Yes, under some circumstances they can. They have to show an impact on the business. So for instance, you post that Hitler was really a good guy for the most part. If half your employer’s clients are Jewish, expect to be fired and don’t bother getting a lawyer. It will stand up. It’s important to understand that the Constitutional right of free speech only pertains to the government, not your employer.

Finally, can an employer fire you based on what others post about you. Again, it can happen. Someone who has it in for you posts that you’re a child molester. The post fuzzy pictures of someone who might or might not be you grabbing a child in the town park. The post other incidents they claim are tied to you.

Can I fire you? You bet … I have no duty to defend your reputation nor do I have any duty to investigate the truth if any behind the allegations. Once my phone starts ringing off the hook with customers saying they’re going elsewhere because I have a child molester working the counter … I assure you that I can legally fire you.

Social media is something that employers and schools will use in attempts to evaluate prospective or current students. But there is a danger to it, especially when blatantly misused by admin idiots who unfortunately have the means to influence your school/employment status.

I learned that school admissions will unfortunately—incorrectly—use it as a evalution tool and that many are too stupid to discern the difference between deliberate and accidental online activity.

In my case, I had faculty at Wright State University (Human Factors Psychology PhD program) stalk me during my admissions process.

After accessing my profile through indirect Facebook Friend connections, WSU Faculty (Bob Gordon, Marty Gooden, Kevin Eschleman, Deborah Steele-Johnson, Kevin Bennett, etc.) stalked all my online activity & stupidly misinterpreted all photos and comments that were on my profile, which created an toxic, uncomfortable environment of harassment that eventually led to me leaving.

This is what happened:

Many years/jobs/school programs ago, my Facebook account was hacked several yrs ago unknown to me.

Existing friends had made groups and requested my membership & support via FB likes/etc., which I freely gave. Unfortunately, somehow over the yrs, the group names changed (intentionally or not) to names of a more offensive/profane nature--ex. 'Should Polygamy Be Legal?' and 'Penetration & Fellatio.'

Due to this, many ppl mistakenly thought I was a promiscious pro- polygamist. I was clearly not and would never support this. I unfortunately was unaware of these changes for several yrs. (In hindsight, I’m sure many of the workplace incidences that occured post-undergrad were also directly related to this. Idiocy can be found everywhere, unfortunately).

Regardless—-

The whole time I attended WSU, I was sexually harassed and made to feel uncomfortable. For ex., I was repeatedly hit on with unwanted advances by repulsive cohort (ex. a mentally retarded obese creeper Jason Culbertson). Despite me repeatedly telling him of my lack of interest, he kept accusing me “playing hard to get” and telling me that I “didn’t need to run from him as he wasn’t chasing me.” During one conversation, he told me about how much he enjoyed watching tv shows about polygamy and asked me if I was into it. Even when I told him how disgusting I found it to his face, he kept on trying to hit on me.

In public, Culbertson would sit next to me and try to rub his legs against mine, and when I made a public display of trying to physically avoid him, he would act all hurt and try to make it like I was acting rude to him when he was too sick and stupid to get the obvious hint. Doubtless, he complained about it to his then advisor Corey Miller who made a big show of downgrading me during his ‘Personnel Selection’ class.

One time, when I gave Jason Culbertson and classmate Mike Hoepf a ride back from a local bar, Culbertson joked about how they were talking about “dumping my body in a ditch.” Hopef would make comments about how if I carpooled with him, I could “ride b-tch.” We lived in the same housing complex, and one of our neighboors—a dyslexic guy named Gareth who referred to me as “Cady #2” (Cady was Mike’s gf, who Gareth also had a crush on. Mike revealed to me that Gareth had asked him many times if he could sleep with Cady if Gareth paid him).

At the time I dismissed this as local retards attempting to act suave and that it was just something that I could put up with while I attended a program that claimed to provide things it didn’t. WHAT A FCKING CREEPSHOW JOKE. I’ve always despised weak, faithless, stupid male; but having these turds indulge in coercion while blatantly manipulating their roles in my school & work needs to be legally prosecuted.

Even from the faculty side, I had to endure many unwaranted comments and idiotic snide remarks about extra marital affairs and “deviant sexual activity.”—ex. Prof. Robert Gordon’s comment made to Psych 105 TAs during a group review. When I first arrived onsite, I met up with cohort Megan Morris & Jerred Holt for dinner during which Holt repeatedly took photos of me without my explicit knowledge or consent. Apparently I was wearing revealing clothing, which translated to jizz material for these photos, which were ltr circulated to the dept by Holt. During a dept mtg, I had to sit amongst these creepy old men while they discused my performance in the program and talked about information they supposedly dug up on me (even though they clearly were being stalkers and fed garbage). John Flach joked about how “they liked it” [the photos], that “we all liked it” (Scott Wantamniuk) and that Kevin Bennett/David LaHuis had gotten in trouble with their spouses for viewing them.

Faked grading and mistreatment by WSU and cohort ensue as a result of this horrible misunderstanding. During this time, a faculty member (Deborah Steele-Johnson - WSU) even had the nerve to accuse me of "impression management." What a stupid hag. Unfortunately, in small racist/sexist sh*tholes like Fairborn, OH, fake information persists—especially if you’re new in town—despite clear evidence to the contrary. Even outside of the garbage diploma mill program, this gossip persisted—I had started a summer job on Wright Patterson Air Force Base close to the school and had to deal with this:

Several weeks after starting as RA’s on a study, Andrew Kiddon (another RA), James Christensen (PI), and I moving physically moving around servers & other hardware on Wright-Patterson Airforce Research Lab Base. There were a few other ppl on site with us. In the middle of all the moving, Christensen commented loudly to a male colleague that he should get a blowjob for the trouble of obtaining fMRI equipment that the I had written a proposal for (I had emailed it both Christensen & Bennett before. The language that was outlined in the proposal clearly indicated that it was the equipment they were talking about). They cackled loudly while staring at me. This ugly, cross-eyed creeper was stupid enough to believe Facebook rumors. Married, with kids, too--disgusting.

Even after I left the program and quit my job there, I had to endure the sexually driven stalkings of former WSU cohort who also believed this garbage:

Kevin Eschleman (WSU/SJSU) arranging to have my car towed the night they decide to leave after being fed up with such bullshit-- an obnoxious & immature $500 con-artist prank. Probably one of the fools who also believed the FB rumors. Apparently he was so stupid that he hoped to bag me along with his then gf Jessica Zagory, who justifiably dumped his ass).

Brad S. - (former graduate, adjunct at Sinclair Community College, & Alarcon’s brainless yes-man) asked Eschleman—”Why don’t you just rape her?”—when I announced my decision to leave the program during Frank Eric Robinson’s thesis celebration at the King’s Table, a local restaurant in a nearby strip mall.

Gene Alarcon (WSU/WP-AFRL) - A real brown-noser at a.nus-level. He would repeatedly brag about attempting to sleep with married women and didn’t see how pathetic and repulsive that made him.
Along with Eschleman, this failed abortion left harassing phone calls on my voicemail pretending to be a member of a federal bank demanding to know my address and other PII. This is illegal and constitutes stalking and harassment. These morons should be arrested. I caught this this a$s-kissing turd spreading lies about me to advisor Kevin Bennett — an impotent midget desperate to exert his control over a perceived mark.

Scott Cambron Deming (WP-AFRL/CU) stalking me even after they leave WSU and threatening me with violence. This idiot had been stalking me since his time as OSU undergrad, where he admitted to trolling various college Facebook groups for sex. This malingering liar needs to get his bullshit stories straight. What a f*cking retard. Like Failed Abortion Alarcon, I caught Creepy Cambron reporting fake info back.

Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Hey Dumbass
Your vet integrator friend is not being compliant and reports back fake information. His observations aren't true. He's not responsive in answering my questions --better to ask who clearly had vested research interests in this whole debacle. The next time you have someone sign up to "babysit" a "research subject", make sure they don't have a criminal background. It makes the PIs look bad. This enlisted has failed. I'm sure there's enough funding in your research grants to send better "babysitters" my way. Have them be more entertaining & less cheap.

*NOTE: That was the original msg, but at this point, after having put up with such irritating af & useless toilet tissue, I’ll demand that you keep these types of sh*t away. Don’t send me any more ‘babysitters’ & make sure they stay the hell away from me.

Companies that index publicly available information about people, their activity on social media platforms and aggregate them into profiles that an employer can purchase as a report. If you have a common name (i.e., John Smith), try to include a middle name or initial to prevent ambiguity in their background searches. Even if you don’t use your real name, it is not difficult to reverse engineer all your nicks and aliases to point back to you.

I have had the opposite problem of worry, however. I am a software developer and am active on several professionally-oriented platforms: GitHub, Stack Overflow, Oracle Dev, etc. I have tried unsuccessfully to link to my profile on all my platforms, including my resume.

The HR field is pretty slow on the uptake. The most common effort is to check your Linked In profile, mostly because they want to mine your contacts for other business leads. Still, it behooves you to keep your profile there sharp and accurate. In general, keep your social profile “clean” and ask yourself the question before posting, even if it is “private” or between friends: Is there anyone who sees this whom I would not want to see it?

Scores of victims of predatory pornography have a similar reputation problem on the Internet. Even if their cases convict their persecutor, there is the matter that the material is now “out there” on the Internet. For every place the court demands them to take down the offending material, several others will replicate their own copies. There’s also the matter of the scattering of personal hard drives and server caches in homes and data centers around the world accumulating and archiving copies as well.

Once it’s on the Internet, it’s permanent.

It’s that serious.

If you have to ask the question, you’ve missed it. It would be best for you if you assumed that they would check. Your protection is if you ask yourself the “post-or-not-to-post” question every time the moment before “submit.”

I greatly doubt that any company uses social media profiles, to make hiring decisions.

Many young people have a belief that companies use a person’s resume to make a hiring decision about them. That’s why there is so much concern among the young, about how to format a resume and how to word the content in a way that will make the resume “stand out” and motivate an immediate job offer.

But it is not so. No one is hired because of anything in his resume. Resumes are used to make a decision on whether to interview a person, or to pass him by. But social media profiles do not even have that use. No one decides whether to interview a person, or pass him by, based on a media profile.

If you are interviewed, then the decision to make you a job offer is based on the interview, probably supposed by key facts from your resume such as GPA, job objective, college choice, major area of education, extracurricular activities and achievements, and the like.

Your social media profiles have nothing to do with any employment decisions or rejections. If you are not getting job offers, you will have to find something else to blame.

An employer’s goal is not only to protect their company, but also to protect their employees. With social media uprising it may seem impossible to put rules into place, but with proper guidelines and policies, employers and employees can both feel at ease.

It is important to both the employer and the employee that social media use be monitored. This is simply to ensure that within the online realm, things are kept professional from both parties. An employer wouldn’t want an employee to leave work and bad mouth the company to all of their online friends. In relation, an employee would not want their boss snooping on their social media page. To ensure that these things don’t occur, it is best to put a policy into place that way if something does occur there will be precautionary steps taken to solve the issue. With proper guidelines and regulations in place, social media monitoring can potentially help a company succeed in many different aspects of the business.

Why do Companies Monitor Employees’ Social Media?

Companies monitor their employees to ensure that no harm is being done within the workplace. A professional business wants to be viewed exactly that way; professional. If an employee makes statements that are malicious or harmful to the employer’s business reputation, this could potentially lead that employee down a very difficult path due to the social media privacy laws put into place. Companies are not allowed to request or demand personal account login information from employees. The only reason an employer should have access to an account is if, and only if, a potentially legal issue within their policy reaches the surface and needs direct attention.

Advantages of Monitoring Employees’ Social Media

When a company monitors an employee’s social media account, they are not only protecting themselves, but their employees as well. It is important to be aware of what your employees are posting on the Internet because posts can travel so fast via the web that it could potentially promote or destroy a company within minutes. Monitoring activity will allow everyone within the company to be on the same page and share the same values. Not only will monitoring help keep a company on track, but it can potentially be used as a way of recruitment for companies as well.

Disadvantages of Monitoring Employees’ Social Media

Employers have to be careful about what information is found on an employee’s social media account. If an employer chooses to utilize social media within their hiring process, they have to be careful that the information they find is not being held against them in an unlawful manner. Meaning, an employer cannot choose to deny an applicant a job opportunity due to their race, gender, religion etc. If an employee knows that their social media page has been utilized, they can claim that they were not hired due to any of these observations and the issue can be taken into court. It is important to note that if social media is utilized within the onboarding process that positive things from the page are taken into account, and the potential candidate should be aware that their page has been viewed by their employer. If a potential employee allows their accounts to be accessed by including links in their resume to view them, any information, in accordance with applicable law, found can be utilized.

This is a complex scenario; on the one hand they don’t want employees representing their company who do not hold the same values as their organisation, but on the other side there are many employees who can separate personal and professional values on a daily basis (lawyers, social workers, doctors, nurses etc)

The question really is whether an employer should be using social media to monitor the values their staff hold, and thereby judging their work ethic as a result - this happens every day with public figures having personal views judged in their ability to do the role.

Most companies have a social media policy to avoid this conflict, but they can be uneven in applying their own rules which becomes dangerous ground.

Social media is something that employers and schools will use in attempts to evaluate prospective or current students. But there is a danger to it, especially when blatantly misused by admin idiots who unfortunately have the means to influence your school/employment status.

I learned that school admissions will unfortunately—incorrectly—use it as a evalution tool and that many are too stupid to discern the difference between deliberate and accidental online activity.

In my case, I had faculty at Wright State University (Human Factors Psychology PhD program) stalk me during my admissions process.

After accessing my profile through indirect Facebook Friend connections, WSU Faculty (Bob Gordon, Marty Gooden, Kevin Eschleman, Deborah Steele-Johnson, Kevin Bennett, etc.) stalked all my online activity & stupidly misinterpreted all photos and comments that were on my profile, which created an toxic, uncomfortable environment of harassment that eventually led to me leaving.

This is what happened:

Many years/jobs/school programs ago, my Facebook account was hacked several yrs ago unknown to me.

Existing friends had made groups and requested my membership & support via FB likes/etc., which I freely gave. Unfortunately, somehow over the yrs, the group names changed (intentionally or not) to names of a more offensive/profane nature--ex. 'Should Polygamy Be Legal?' and 'Penetration & Fellatio.'

Due to this, many ppl mistakenly thought I was a promiscious pro- polygamist. I was clearly not and would never support this. I unfortunately was unaware of these changes for several yrs. (In hindsight, I’m sure many of the workplace incidences that occured post-undergrad were also directly related to this. Idiocy can be found everywhere, unfortunately).

Regardless—-

The whole time I attended WSU, I was sexually harassed and made to feel uncomfortable. For ex., I was repeatedly hit on with unwanted advances by repulsive cohort (ex. a mentally retarded obese creeper Jason Culbertson). Despite me repeatedly telling him of my lack of interest, he kept accusing me “playing hard to get” and telling me that I “didn’t need to run from him as he wasn’t chasing me.” During one conversation, he told me about how much he enjoyed watching tv shows about polygamy and asked me if I was into it. Even when I told him how disgusting I found it to his face, he kept on trying to hit on me.

In public, Culbertson would sit next to me and try to rub his legs against mine, and when I made a public display of trying to physically avoid him, he would act all hurt and try to make it like I was acting rude to him when he was too sick and stupid to get the obvious hint. Doubtless, he complained about it to his then advisor Corey Miller who made a big show of downgrading me during his ‘Personnel Selection’ class.

One time, when I gave Jason Culbertson and classmate Mike Hoepf a ride back from a local bar, Culbertson joked about how they were talking about “dumping my body in a ditch.” Hopef would make comments about how if I carpooled with him, I could “ride b-tch.” We lived in the same housing complex, and one of our neighboors—a dyslexic guy named Gareth who referred to me as “Cady #2” (Cady was Mike’s gf, who Gareth also had a crush on. Mike revealed to me that Gareth had asked him many times if he could sleep with Cady if Gareth paid him).

At the time I dismissed this as local retards attempting to act suave and that it was just something that I could put up with while I attended a program that claimed to provide things it didn’t. WHAT A FCKING CREEPSHOW JOKE. I’ve always despised weak, faithless, stupid male; but having these turds indulge in coercion while blatantly manipulating their roles in my school & work needs to be legally prosecuted.

Even from the faculty side, I had to endure many unwaranted comments and idiotic snide remarks about extra marital affairs and “deviant sexual activity.”—ex. Prof. Robert Gordon’s comment made to Psych 105 TAs during a group review. When I first arrived onsite, I met up with cohort Megan Morris & Jerred Holt for dinner during which Holt repeatedly took photos of me without my explicit knowledge or consent. Apparently I was wearing revealing clothing, which translated to jizz material for these photos, which were ltr circulated to the dept by Holt. During a dept mtg, I had to sit amongst these creepy old men while they discused my performance in the program and talked about information they supposedly dug up on me (even though they clearly were being stalkers and fed garbage). John Flach joked about how “they liked it” [the photos], that “we all liked it” (Scott Wantamniuk) and that Kevin Bennett/David LaHuis had gotten in trouble with their spouses for viewing them.

Faked grading and mistreatment by WSU and cohort ensue as a result of this horrible misunderstanding. During this time, a faculty member (Deborah Steele-Johnson - WSU) even had the nerve to accuse me of "impression management." What a stupid hag. Unfortunately, in small racist/sexist sh*tholes like Fairborn, OH, fake information persists—especially if you’re new in town—despite clear evidence to the contrary. Even outside of the garbage diploma mill program, this gossip persisted—I had started a summer job on Wright Patterson Air Force Base close to the school and had to deal with this:

Several weeks after starting as RA’s on a study, Andrew Kiddon (another RA), James Christensen (PI), and I moving physically moving around servers & other hardware on Wright-Patterson Airforce Research Lab Base. There were a few other ppl on site with us. In the middle of all the moving, Christensen commented loudly to a male colleague that he should get a blowjob for the trouble of obtaining fMRI equipment that the I had written a proposal for (I had emailed it both Christensen & Bennett before. The language that was outlined in the proposal clearly indicated that it was the equipment they were talking about). They cackled loudly while staring at me. This ugly, cross-eyed creeper was stupid enough to believe Facebook rumors. Married, with kids, too--disgusting.

Even after I left the program and quit my job there, I had to endure the sexually driven stalkings of former WSU cohort who also believed this garbage:

Kevin Eschleman (WSU/SJSU) arranging to have my car towed the night they decide to leave after being fed up with such bullshit-- an obnoxious & immature $500 con-artist prank. Probably one of the fools who also believed the FB rumors. Apparently he was so stupid that he hoped to bag me along with his then gf Jessica Zagory, who justifiably dumped his ass).

Brad S. - (former graduate, adjunct at Sinclair Community College, & Alarcon’s brainless yes-man) asked Eschleman—”Why don’t you just rape her?”—when I announced my decision to leave the program during Frank Eric Robinson’s thesis celebration at the King’s Table, a local restaurant in a nearby strip mall.

Gene Alarcon (WSU/WP-AFRL) - A real brown-noser at a.nus-level. He would repeatedly brag about attempting to sleep with married women and didn’t see how pathetic and repulsive that made him.
Along with Eschleman, this failed abortion left harassing phone calls on my voicemail pretending to be a member of a federal bank demanding to know my address and other PII. This is illegal and constitutes stalking and harassment. These morons should be arrested. I caught this this a$s-kissing turd spreading lies about me to advisor Kevin Bennett — an impotent midget desperate to exert his control over a perceived mark.

Scott Cambron Deming (WP-AFRL/CU) stalking me even after they leave WSU and threatening me with violence. This idiot had been stalking me since his time as OSU undergrad, where he admitted to trolling various college Facebook groups for sex. This malingering liar needs to get his bullshit stories straight. What a f*cking retard. Like Failed Abortion Alarcon, I caught Creepy Cambron reporting fake info back.

Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Hey Dumbass
Your vet integrator friend is not being compliant and reports back fake information. His observations aren't true. He's not responsive in answering my questions --better to ask who clearly had vested research interests in this whole debacle. The next time you have someone sign up to "babysit" a "research subject", make sure they don't have a criminal background. It makes the PIs look bad. This enlisted has failed. I'm sure there's enough funding in your research grants to send better "babysitters" my way. Have them be more entertaining & less cheap.

*NOTE: That was the original msg, but at this point, after having put up with such irritating af & useless toilet tissue, I’ll demand that you keep these types of sh*t away. Don’t send me any more ‘babysitters’ & make sure they stay the hell away from me.

Remember that no reason or rationale is required. In the U.S. an employer can decline to hire you for any reason, or none, barring discriminating against you for an illegal reason such as race, religion or gender. Other than that basic groundline, employers are always looking for ways to distinguish among candidates, see what candidates have to offer, match to “best practices” of other firms, look for problem indicators, or just fill in the check boxes on a hiring system. Not having social media can bump you for any of these reasons (or others), whether it makes sense or not. If you have a safety issue, then possibly you can explain that to the employer and work around it, but more likely, they won’t want to deal with it or you, or they will see your reasons as reasons you don’t fit the job requirements. In the end, if you really want to know, you’ll have to push the issue with the employer, if you can.

Thank you for A2A.

From my personal experience 'Yes' but, there is a lot that goes in to it. You have to do a through deep search mostly my clients and I use google X-Ray search and try numerous combinations to ensure that the profile that we have is exactly the same as their social profile.

I do technical hiring so I also check github, stack, and other websites and see how does this person holds off in the social community. It's very difficult but, worth it. In fact I had a consultant submit his profile today with linkedin and github links after doing various checks and scrubs came to find out that everyone who had endorsed and left recommendations were connected to a IT training company. No one from the jobs the person had listed in his LinkedIn profile had endorsed him.

On his Github page I searched for the same projects and repositories and there were lots of other people who had the same exact thing and a few of them led to the training company's page which showed that the training company had provided those projects to the consultants in their training academy. It was a very stupid move but, some companies don't do that deep checking and these people ends up on a job with a proxy interview and then when they are unable to support the projects they get let go.

In the past I took the person's information and did a little bit research and stumbled upon a visa related website where the person had asked a question about a different visa status and falsified their visa status to me when the profile was submitted. I went and asked for the copy of the Visa to check the validity of the expiration date they company kept making excuse and eventually stopped responding.

One time I found a consultant's Facebook profile in which he had a picture working at Domino's Pizza which raised a red flag.

On a positive note I have come across profiles where the director/Lead/PM of the companies from the projects the consultant has worked on have left very good recommendations for that person which helps us move forward fast and show of their profiles to our clients of course after the consent of the consultant. It has always brought good results. If my consultant has a Github or other profiles where they seem very strong we also present those to the clients to see the quality of the code.

There are also cases where the developer had 25 years of development experience and no social profiles but, does an excellent job in the per-screening that the actual interview becomes more of a meet and greet with the client.

I really only check social life of the person when there is a red flag in the resume or how people present themselves during the first call. I am kind ;) so I always like to give people benefit of the doubt and really dig in during the pr-screening and hoping that I am wrong so that I don't have to search for more people and close the position fast but, that hasn't happened yet I guess I make good judgement based on my experience.

Not to brag but I can tell if the person is genuine or not from the moment the consultant says hello. When I train other recruiters I get a few of them who like to challenge me so I play a little game as soon as the person says hello I write down on a piece of paper Real or Fake after the interview I get the respect because I am always right. It's not to disrespect anyone after all they are wasting my time and miss representing their self to me and I am doing my best to give them a chance to fool me. If they can fool me they can crack the interview that's how I see it.

Employers are increasingly using social media to screen potential employees. Employers are using social networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter to determine if a job candidate is right for the role. As such, employers and jobseekers need to understand the standards used when utilizing social media to evaluate applicants.

There are several ways in which employers should use social media when screening potential employees:

1) Researching Professional Qualifications:

Employers can use social networking sites to examine a potential employee’s professional acumen. LinkedIn can be used as an online resume or portfolio that showcases a candidate’s experience and achievements in their chosen field.

2) Determining Personal Characteristics:

Through social networks, employers have access to applicants’ postings, pictures and other content uploaded by users, which may give them some indication of the type of person they are considering hiring. It is important for employers to consider statements that could indicate ethical behaviour, respect for colleagues, and whether they display sound problem-solving skills while engaging with others on these platforms.

3) Reviewing Past Behaviour And Interactions:

Social networking websites provide detailed insights into how people interact with each other offline through comments, shares and likes on posts etc. By examining past behaviour, one can get an idea of the kind of language someone uses while conversing on the Internet, how much self-control and maturity they show in different scenarios presented through their postings, and how open they are towards diversity and inclusion.

4) Assessing Cultural Alignment:

Going through a job applicant's profile on any of these platforms may give insight into what kind of culture they are aligned with both professionally. This will help identify whether the applicant would fit within the workplace's existing cultural atmosphere.

Conclusion

Overall, employers should use social media judiciously when making decisions about hiring new staff so that candidates are assessed fairly without their personal beliefs taking precedence over their actual credentials for advertised positions.

Employers must remember that these resources should only act as complementary information alongside interviews and background checks conducted following standard established practices before making any decisions regarding staffing changes.

Yes ofcourse. So many people has been fired for making racist remarks years ago on their Facebook pages.

Ah, the mystical realm of online presence and social media – the digital spice of the hiring world! Now, let me break it down for you like we're sipping coffee at a quirky cafe.

The Social Media Salsa

Imagine you're throwing a party, and your potential employer is your guest of honor. Your online presence is like the salsa at that party – it adds flavor, and people will remember it! Employers these days aren't just interested in your résumé; they want to know if you're salsa-worthy.

Fun Fact: Salsa dancing burns calories, just like your impressive LinkedIn profile burns away job-search stress!

The Power of the LinkedIn Makeover

Let's talk LinkedIn. It's not just a platform; it's your digital handshake with the professional world. If your LinkedIn profile were a superhero, it would be the Captain America shield of your job hunt. Employers love a good LinkedIn makeover – it's like upgrading from a flip phone to the latest smartphone.

Twitter Tales and Hashtag Hikes

X (formerly Twitter), my friend, is the wild west of social media – short, sweet, and sometimes downright hilarious. Your future employer might just be stalking your 280-character musings. So, tweet wisely and sprinkle in a few industry-related jokes. Humor is the secret sauce of social media success!

The Facebook Face-Off

Ah, Facebook, the nostalgic grandparent of social media. Your profile should be a testament to your professionalism, mixed with a dash of personality. Share industry insights, and oh, don't forget to untag yourself from that college party album – your potential boss might be lurking.

Instagram: The Visual Delight

Instagram is the Picasso of your online canvas. Showcase your professional journey through eye-catching visuals. Your profile should be a storybook of your accomplishments and experiences – a scrollable résumé that's visually stunning.

In Conclusion...

So, is a candidate's online presence and social media profile crucial in the hiring decision? Absolutely! It's like asking if guacamole is necessary with nachos – technically, you can survive without it, but why would you want to?

It can affect it quite a bit. I would bet that a lot of employers these days will do a social media search before hiring a candidate. I know I’ve done this myself in the past. It can tell you a lot about a person.

I realize it’s not fair to solely judge someone based on their social media presence. However, I think it’s safe to assume that someone who has inappropriate or questionable content (it’s relative, I know) all over their social media accounts, might not a lot of common sense. If you are serious about your career, you should keep all personal stuff private. If you have it all out there for the public to see, I’d seriously question your ability to make sound, responsible decisions.

As an employer you are not supposed to take into consideration anything that you might discriminate against illegally. If, for instance, you check someone’s social media and find out they are a particular religion or have a disability that you’re not supposed to know about, you could be sued if you turn them down. For that reason companies that wish to screen via social media - and a number do that - get some outside recruiter, consultant or background checker to do it… and only report things the company is legally entitled to take into consideration. If you do it yourself, it will be assumed you saw whatever the prohibited item was and decided based on it… and you could lose lots of money.