Slashdot Mirror
Intern? Bloggers Need Not Apply
westlake writes "Short, funny, and to the point, a good read from the NYT about the realities of blogging in the corporate world." From the article: "Most experienced employees know: Thou Shalt Not Blab About the Company's Internal Business. But the line between what is public and what is private is increasingly fuzzy for young people comfortable with broadcasting nearly every aspect of their lives on the Web, posting pictures of their grandmother at graduation next to one of them eating whipped cream off a woman's belly. For them, shifting from a like-minded audience of peers to an intergenerational, hierarchical workplace can be jarring."
My coworkers and I were sharing stories at lunch the other day; thankfully, my office is blissfuly absent of corporate culture ("professional, but relaxed"). A coworker who has a daughter my age said that when her daughter started working as a receptionist at a hospital, she came home after a few months on the job and said "Mom...you never told me Dilbert was real..."
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Don't use your real name on your blog, you idiot!
I don't know if it's all that different from when I was first entering the workplace, but today's youngsters put it all out there. I don't know where kids get the idea that the only ones who would ever look at their MySpace blogs are people in their own age group.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
I determined a while ago that any private material that becomes public material can be used against you. In about 20 years I expect a metric shit-ton of blackmail material will be available for our future up-and-coming politicians. (Thank you MySpace for embarrassing our future politicians!)
Of course, because I'm smart enough to keep private matters private, I'm automatically disqualified from politics. (Yay!)
Hint: No matter how awesome that frat party was (I don't care *how* crazy those midgets where!), it's probably not a good idea to post those pics until your hangover is gone.
On the other hand -if we encouraged all of the Poli Sci, Business and Law students to not only blog, but to also to post pictures of their exploits on myspace we might be able to weed out some of our future idiot/corrupt politicos and business people.
Just think if this have been around in the '80s when King George was partying his brains out....
-What's the Speed of Dark?
Was the woman his grandmother? I wouldn't hire that dude at all.
OK, I've heard the "information wants to be free" mantra a zillion times, and I've met my fair share of people who think their right to free speech (no matter what they're saying and what the consequences will be) trumps anything else.
I've seen an absurd story on the news today about a British woman who was prosecuted for indecent exposure, because she had the audacity to sunbathe nude in her own garden. (She was acquitted, but the comments by both the public prosecutor and the judge were profoundly inappropriate, and no-one seems to have taken any action against the "offended" neighbour who videoed the nude sunbather without her permission - something that probably is illegal under the recent Sexual Offences Act.)
You know the thing that really scared me today? A professor (in the UK sense, i.e., a very senior academic) talking about the "semantic web" and implying that in a few years, everyone will have a unique "Internet ID", and everything from their personal details to pictures of their wedding will be on-line for all to look up, instantly and reliably.
Choosing to share your personal information with the world is one thing, though I suspect a great many of the enthusiastic youngsters supporting trendy web sites today will regret it one day. Choosing to share others' personal information with the world is an entirely different thing, and I'm not sure I want to live in a world where everything about you is assumed to be public knowledge.
Maybe I'm just biased, since a bitter ex of mine did once post intimate and formerly private personal messages on her blog (but edited and with modified dates). It just seems to me that this sort of thing is happening ever more often: it's assumed that no-one you deal with has a private life, and if you know it, it's perfectly fine to share it with others. I guess the whole posting confidential company information thing is just another nail in the coffin: as the saying goes, privacy is dead, and we have killed it.
It's tragic, and it's even more tragic that most people don't even realise. Yet.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"What would Google show?" is a question you need to ask yourself when applying for a job. Employers increasingly Google the name of prospective employees. Not for the mail room job, but certainly for management level positions or those with security implications or even just those above some annual salary level. You also need to remember that with huge caches that shit doesn't go away even if you try to disappear it. What you thought was cool at 20 may not seem so to someone you are asking to pay you 100k at 30.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
"It is important that corporations make a choice as to what type of blogging they will allow," said Alfred C. Frawley III, director of the intellectual property practice group at the law firm Preti Flaherty in Portland, Me.
Why does blogging need a different set of rules than any other medium for communication?
If there is something your company doesn't want disclosed, have the lawyers draft up the paperwork. Just for kicks, we'll call it a "non-disclosure agreement", or NDA for short. If this NDA is broken, handle accordingly.
You may be within your rights to decide what I am allowed to disclose, but what does it matter how I do it?
Director of the intellectual property practice indeed. Just another moron with a big title that even he doesn't understand.
Someone put forward the theory to me the other day that we like Celebrities (and I use the term 'we' here loosely) because we miss the sense of community our tribal ancestors had. Celebrities fill the gap because they provide a familiarity with faces and shared stories that link us to other people around the world.
Blogging seems to extend this idea (ideal?) by making peoples stories more openly shared. For example, I read http://www.waiterrant.net/ and http://www.oblivio.com/, I know their stories even though they live in new york, and somehow the world feels smaller and less disparate. Added to that, I have a few friends who read the same blogs, we both know their stories (or at least the stories they choose to tell).
It brings back that sense of community a little.
Can't we all just get along
I continue to be amazed at the personal details shared across the internet. At one time, I put my phone number, office number, and alternate email addresses, in my signature. That changed significantly after AOL "joined" the internet, of course. With the panic in human resources about providing or receiving references (beyond the dates of employment), things like myspace provde an interesting adjunct to vetting future workers.
It isn't just the inappropriate pictures that will keep you from being employed. It's the evidence that you can't keep quiet about things, that you're not trustworthy, that you're not even very good with grammar and spelling (in the real world, spelling counts). Once upon a time you could move away from a bad reputation, or switch jobs to leave behind a bad experience or two. Now, with things like zabasearch and google hacks to track you down, youthful indescretion becomes a permanent and inescapable brand.
No second chances. Sad.
The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal. (Mark Twain)
Shouldn't "eating whipped cream off a woman's belly" be a link above?
Anyone dumb enough to post their company's innermost secrets on their blog deserves exactly what they get.
Similarly, any boss who fires an employee simply on the basis that they have a blog, regardless of content, deserves some sort of dressing down - although this is harder to achieve.
People are too often pushed into very polarised positions on the matter, which helps no-one. There's plenty of acceptable middle ground, if only someone could bring reasonable discussion to the table.
Aaaahhh - damn. I knew I shouldn't use my real name when I registered. Oh god, what am I gonna do now - aaaahhhh.
Actually, I think many people invent a psuedo-name and often don't realize when they've crossed the line from anonymous to identifiable when you look at the collection of what they post. The vastness of the internet makes people feel safe even when their standing naked in public.
I've worked with 2 people who were fired over blogs they thought were quite anonymous, but it became quite clear who was writing them when you looked at the collection of posts. They both knew perfectly well if they were caught they'd be fired (and they should've been), but they also felt quite anonymous since they didn't use their 'real names. It's ALOT like folks that post 'anonymous' comments on stock boards.
I thought that said "eating whipped cream off their grandmother's belly."
Come to think of it, gotta be careful what you post at Slashdot: all that anti-Microsoft hatred that can get spewed could be problematic when The (Wo)Man goes to sign a paycheque.
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
From TFA:
But Comedy Central disagreed, asking him to change the name (He did, to "I'm an Intern in New York") and to stop revealing how its brand of comedic sausage is stuffed.
"They said they figured something like this would happen eventually because blogs had become so popular," said Mr. McDonald, now 23, who kept his internship. "It caught them off guard. They didn't really like that."
So, basically, they objected to him sharing potentially confidential information (fair enough) and to his using their name for his personal (readership/ad) gain. Again, fair enough. He still got to keep the blog, and he's still an intern there. Oh, and he didn't have the blog when he "applied," anyway.
Le sigh. If the editors don't RTFA, what hope is there for the rest of the readership again?
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
(all of this known, first-hand)
Hospitals are sieves...for the most part. I can cite a current situation where things were kept very clandestine due to the extreme nature of what was going on. The press largely chose to skip over it which shocked me.
Nurses aren't unfireable, per se, regardless of how endangered a species they appear to be. It just costs more to lure some of them out of hiding. Nurses are, however, almost the lifeblood of a facility as there are few things they can't & don't do, out of care for the patients as much as pure necessity. You don't see orderlies any more. It's not unusual for a minimum of the staff, working directly or indirectly for the hospital, to be more than 1/3 nurses. There's only one thing which nurses do not cope with very well: hospitals which offshore nurses; i.e., bring in 3rd-world nurses. There is almost nothing they won't do -- trumping the nurses we believe so strongly in. Fortunately, this is a rare, rare situation.
The group (en masse) which has virtually no accountability to the hospital is that which has a lot of M.D. and other related abbreviated diplomas and licenses. They rarely work directly for the hospital but instead, for a separate organization which more or less dovetails into hospitals' structures such that it's as if they are working for the hospital. The bridge is usually someone who works in a department labelled (or similarly labelled) Medical Affairs.
Something hospital staff (including MDs, RNs[1], and even housekeeping have to be reminded of is not to talk about what they see, hear, or participate in or outside of the hospital. (re: patients) Most people would be surprised how much "indirect" shop talk takes place after a shift over a few drinks and even with specific clues left out, it's possible to identify whom they are talking about. What's worse is when they do it in the hallways or elevators and may be sharing hearing space with family or friends of the patient(s) they are discussing.
____________________________________
[1] You'll notice I abhore using the "grocer's apostrophe" with acronyms. I hate seeing "MD's", "RN's", "PC's". It's gotten so bad people will post ads in real newspapers ala "Schedule Party's With Us!".
Actually, the purpose for this footnote was to point out how many nurses and technicians (doctors don't seem to do it very much) say, "I'm headed to the OR|ER room".
While I most likely wouldn't call anyone to an interview whose postings show indescretion, I often think of how I'd just like to see their face when I place a copy of their search results in front of them.
Why do you think I post under a 'nym?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
as in the unfortunate case of nurses
Yes, it's unfortunate that people who dedicate their lives to the care of the sick and injured can't be fired by some blow-dried corporate fuck because his golf game got canceled.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I'm no intern, nor am I an up-and-coming executive. The sort of life I'm looking for and the "adult" lifestyle I pursue is one that's totally compatible with some random guy who makes bad jokes on message boards, produces cheaply done artwork, remixes pop music without permission, writes "Doctor Who" fanfic, is a member of a pagan coven, MCs cheezy presentations at hacker cons, and posts strange dreams to livejournal. I may not ever make partner in the prestigious XYZ firm, I may not ever break six figures, but I'll be somewhere doing something that is compatible with someone like me.
So, having things on my "permanent record" like the stuff I've done with phonelosers.org or 2600 or whatever else is strangely liberating in its way, because it pretty much forces me into putting my money where my mouth is and seeking out a lifestyle I'd be happy in, rather than one I'll endure for the sake of appearances.
Hi, my name is Rob, and I'm Googleable.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
[sarcastic half-joking mode on]
Saying, writing, opening up to the wide audience your stupidity, wierdness, incompetence, intolerance, ignorance, unability to filter private information from useless public stuff, bad spelling, lack of imagination, lack of social life, bad or lacking love life, low skills in problem solving, bad opinions about certain companies, lacking technical skills, etc. etc. and you'd still expect a decent company to hire you ?
Thing is, on this planet, you can always be certain that there does indeed exist at least one person that is dumber than you. So, all you have to do is find that person and convince him/her to hire you.
If you can't imagine that some things in your life should be kept private (I'm not talking about kinky habits or any disgusting behavior and such, just simple things) then I can't imagine you working with or for me.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
This and other posts discussing corporate culture, but using the US medical & hospital system as an example...OH MY GOD. Could you pick a WORSE example? Or are you begging for another endless argument about the problems with a private madical system in the first place?
All I will say is THANK GOD I'm a canadian so I don't even have to THINK of this kind of bullshit. Primary medical care is a basic need, and ONLY the best people for the job should be hired and retained. There is NO logical argument to the contrary here, unless you don't value life.
(Minor troll, but true nonetheless: It's quite apparent that the US as an entity does NOT value life whatsoever)
No Comment.
Food and clothing are basic needs to, yet the State shouldn't be providing them. The State should not be in the business of satisfying basic needs, period: its sole role is to punish those who violate the rights of others.