Judging You By the Online Company You Keep

theodp writes "Network analysis uses data about your social network interactions to make assumptions and predictions about your behavior. The Economist notes the upside for companies looking to sell products. But don't forget about the downside, warns Adrian Chen, of living in a world where network analysis is used by financial firms to determine risky borrowers by looking at social ties, or by Internet businesses to determine which customers are more equal than others (nice to see Microsoft's back on the forefront of some tech!). So, did Mom envision Social Network Analytics when she gave you that you-are-the-company-you-keep lecture?"

Comments

My friends are all entrepreneurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a PHP and Rails entrepreneur and all of my friends and associates are entrepreneurs too. I'm glad to be networked to them using twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn and flickr. We've been working in this Starbucks since about 2002 but I know that sometime soon our ideas will take off and we'll all be millionaires.

Re:My friends are all entrepreneurs.

[akayani]

Starbucks in on the Boycott Israel list AND THEY MAKE CRAP COFFEE.

Financial Meltdown

[the eric conspiracy]

There is nothing wrong about doing good due diligence before lending money. Maybe the economy would be in better shape if we had more of this going on.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that there aren't enough dowsing rods for telling good borrowers from bad ones. The problem is that there is so much (free) money going around that the people who are in a position to lend have run out of ideas for investments. That's why they knowingly lend to people who are likely to default. The trick is to get rid of the risk before it manifests. The money from the housing crisis isn't gone. On the contrary, even more money has been made available. The trick is to know where it's being "invested". If you can spot the next inevitable bubble early, you can get out in time and make a killing.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[flonker]

According to our files, you're Facebook friends with someone who has a credit score of 500, and who declared medical bankruptcy. Sorry, we have to deny your request for a mortgage.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[hedwards]

More than that, it's cheap money and easy to get insurance that's caused a huge portion of the problem. Then when you include incentives to make a lot of loans and no penalty for making bad ones, it doesn't take a Nobel winning economist to see that something's going to go horribly, horribly awry eventually.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Steauengeglase]

Makes me wonder what life will be like for someone who does charity work with the homeless.

"Well, We would like to give you a loan Mr. Smith, but half of your facebook friends have made comments about being broke, going into foreclosure and one was even eating out of a garbage can. We don't think you are the right candidate for a home loan. In spite of being gainfully employed for 30 years, the risk is just too great."

Re:Financial Meltdown

[kestasjk]

Okay, then I'll get a loan from a company with decent statisticians who recognize that your friends don't determine how safe a debtor you are.
And if it turns out having friends with poor credit scores actually does indicate how safe you are (I really doubt it) then I'm all for that information being used appropriately.

Knowing the true risk of default is never a bad thing, for either party. A lot of the problems we've had since 2008 could have been avoided with better risk analysis.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, along with my wifes 4,000 other "friends" from her Zoo World addiction.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[couchslug]

Time for a social networking app to artificially improve "scores" based on social networking.

I'm friends with that guy to bring him to Jesus. :)

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Jiro]

Statisticians for loan companies have no incentive to reduce the error rate once it's beneath a certain level, since the effort to refine the loan criteria costs more than the gain from not rejecting people who don't fit the bogus criteria. There might not even be any such gain at all if the bogus criteria are merely neutral--a company that rejects everyone whose name contains the letter 'Q' is never going to have a reason to stop doing that because while it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt the company either unless there are so many customers with 'Q' in their name that it reduces the total customer base below what they can handle.

In fact, that's one of the major problems with companies gathering information on you--they have no incentive to reduce the error rate to zero, and even a few percent of error rate can lead to millions of false positives.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[vlm]

Makes me wonder what life will be like for someone who does charity work with the homeless.

You comment on it being used to deny loans, but I think it more likely it would be used to deny life/health/auto insurance. And frankly, that is a fair use.

Aside from eating out the garbage can (so far as I know) your other descriptions pretty accurately portray my ex-coworkers at an unnamed dying company... I escaped, but anyone still stuck working there or now unemployed, frankly should not be taking out a loan.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[ScrewMaster]

There is nothing wrong about doing good due diligence before lending money.

Sure ... up to a point. And that point was passed when banks, lenders and businesses linked up nationwide to share information about their customers.

The entire credit system in this country (and others I suppose, but I only know what goes on in the U.S.) serve only to insulate companies from what are the normal costs of doing business. That is its purpose: it is not there for your benefit, not there for mine. Prior to the rise of the credit bureaus, a business would deem a customer worthy by its own history with said customer, or maybe by asking the outfit next door. They did not do this by combing the complete financial histories of a potential customer, wherever he might be, wherever he might have lived. We get all gnarly when the government builds giant databases on us, keeps profiles on us, tracks us, and makes decisions about that information that affect us. Nobody seems too bothered about the credit bureaus, which is odd given that the average consumer has issues with them far more frequently than he does with government. The credit system has done nothing but screw consumers over, time and again, and the more money the people that run the financial system in this country squander, the more they use their pet monstrosity to milk even more money from the consumer.

The Big Three wield tremendous power over us, power that no private sector organization should have. Of course, that applies to anyone or anything that likes to collect lots and lots of personal information and sell it. Face it, when you concentrate pretty much anything, it may have value to someone, but it invariably becomes dangerous to someone else.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Anonymous Coward]

does indicate how safe you are (I really doubt it)

That is partially true, for example in times of abundance it tends to be false as it put you in a concrete demography but in time of crisis if your friends before the crisis where wealthy is true as that demonstrates how well you manages your money. The problems lies in the context and how the people read the data, for example someone that I know ten years go stopped to invest in loan companies because of he saw the high risk and low quality of their market, he is a very cautious investor but and the same time he is the only one of the ones that I know that was virtually unaffected by the crisis, after all he is the only one of those that today is making money and didn't loss a penny.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[digitig]

Okay, then I'll get a loan from a company with decent statisticians who recognize that your friends don't determine how safe a debtor you are. And if it turns out having friends with poor credit scores actually does indicate how safe you are (I really doubt it) then I'm all for that information being used appropriately.

So all those folks on the skids tend to hang out together and are all bad credit risks, and all the millionaires tend to hang out together and are good credit risks, so there's a correlation. Unfortunately, if anybody with a good credit rating turns philanthropist and starts working with and befriending those down on their luck their credit rating is going to take a hit, so they're not going to do that. Way to discourage good works, folks.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Americano]

so they're not going to do that. Way to discourage good works, folks.

That's as tenuous a conclusion as saying "because you've befriended some poor people on facebook, therefore you're a bad credit risk."

You're sort of ignoring the whole "review of assets" bit that banks and mortgage companies do. "Well, you have millions of dollars in property and investments, but you're friends with a guy who just lost his job. Sorry, can't give you a loan."

Anybody asserting that Facebook is going to be the only thing that determines whether or not you get a loan has an agenda to push.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[memojuez]

The core issue for the Housing Crisis wasn't a lack of knowledge in what the true risk was. Mortgage Brokers were knowingly take risks that were guaranteed to fail. I personally know a couple that were giving a loan with mortgage payments exceeded their monthly GROSS income. The brokerage firm purposely filed falsified documents to acquire said loan with the intent to bundle it into a derivatives package and resell. They're only care was to score a big immediate pay-off for them and the lender and not worry about the long term solvency of the actual loan itself.

This was especially rampant in Florida which was the ramped up center for land speculation following the "2000-2002 Stock Market Crash."

Re:Financial Meltdown

[kestasjk]

If a company rejects anyone whose name contains the letter Q that company is going to lose out on a big chunk of potential profits.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[kestasjk]

Anybody asserting that Facebook is going to be the only thing that determines whether or not you get a loan has an agenda to push.

What was that saying.. "Never blame malice when you can't rule out stupidity"?
I think this might just be people getting too worked up looking for something to pin on Facebook, rather than a calculated agenda.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[kestasjk]

And it would have been harder to do that with better automated tools for calculating risk based on someones social position.

If you know, based on someones social network, that they're likely to be poorer than they're letting on on their credit application, or if you make that sort of information more transparent and easy to obtain, that's going to make it harder for a mortgage broker to lie to an investor.
It does have privacy implications, but there's always positive and negative outcomes of giving up privacy (that's why it's such a trend these days).

I'm not saying this would have solved the financial crisis, that would be incredible simplistic for a very complicated problem, but having more information on potential debtors would definitely have added another hurdle to making the crisis happen.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[magarity]

The problem isn't that there aren't enough dowsing rods for telling good borrowers from bad ones
 
Sure there are, that's why there used to be this expression, "safe as houses". It meant there was no safer way to invest money than in mortgage loans and real estate. Unfortunately the politicians got into the act and started messing with the system. The banks DON'T want to repo houses! They want every borrower to make every payment on time for the life of the loan. The banks' risk exposure would be nothing and profit would be assured which is what they naturally strive for.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[shoehornjob]

There is nothing wrong about doing good due diligence before lending money. Maybe the economy would be in better shape if we had more of this going on.

Dude, the economy failed because a bunch of people got greedy and made too many unstable financial transactions.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Hognoxious]

The core issue for the Housing Crisis wasn't a lack of knowledge in what the true risk was. [...] The brokerage firm purposely filed falsified documents to acquire said loan with the intent to bundle it into a derivatives package and resell.

I'd say there was a lack of knowledge; because if the people they resold it to had known, they wouldn't have bought it.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[horza]

Winning the lottery is a sure-fire way of suddenly getting lots of Facebook friends with low credit scores.

In France the system is very sensible. You take your monthly net income after tax, remove monthly debt repayments such as credit cards and any other mortgages, and divide by 3. You can take out any mortgage as long as the monthly repayment does not exceed this figure. Credit scores are irrelevant. Of course it sucks if you are self-employed.

kestaskj is correct though, not giving you money at that cannot afford to pay back is in the best interest of both parties (not really relevant to the story but he makes an important point).

Phillip.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[the_humeister]

A lot of the problems we've had since 2008 could have been avoided with better risk analysis.

No, the problems go much deeper than that. One was mandating that banks make loans to people who aren't qualified and then having the government, more or less, guarantee these loans (this goes back to the Carter administration, but every president since then was also guilty of endorsing this). The second was having the wrong incentives for loan companies: they made money processing these loans and then selling them to someone else. It's the ultimate legal get rich-quick scheme at the time.

We've had very good risk analysis for a long time. However, we've just had insane incentives that make it more profitable in the short term to ignore those analyses.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[memojuez]

This is true to the point that the purchaser/investor was relying on alleged good information from the derivatives seller as required to qualify for the loan in the first place. "Good Faith" between lenders so to speak. There was illegal activity going on at the lowest level of the process and definite collusion between the brokers and lenders, the initiating parties.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[kdemetter]

You are forgetting that people might not like companies that deny people based on a certain letter of the alphabet.
In particular if those people happen to have a large group of friends , who will all read the outrage on that persons wall.

I wonder if anyone made a statistical analysis of how many potential customers they could lose this way.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[the eric conspiracy]

No, the problems go much deeper than that. One was mandating that banks make loans to people who aren't qualified and then having the government, more or less, guarantee these loans (this goes back to the Carter administration, but every president since then was also guilty of endorsing this).

Please explain where these so-called mandates to issue no-document subprime loans were enacted in law. The fact is that these mandates didn't exist. Nor were there guarantees for these banks making the loans. The problem really was that these loans were securitized, rated AAA and then sold to other financial institutions. The rating agencies and the companies buying the securities didn't do proper due diligence so they didn't realize the loans were crappy quality. Subprime, no documentation etc. When the issuing banks realized they could bundle and sell any old loans they obviously had no reason to hold back on the loans. At the same time the Feds dropped the reserve requirements for large investment banks, making a flood of money available for the purchase of these securities.

It's all a matter of people getting sloppy on the risk assessment. Total lack of responsibility and unfettered greed.

If analysis of social networks brings about correlations that can be used to reduce risk, and the issuing authorities use that information it's a good idea. If people don't want their information to be used that way, well maybe they shouldn't make their lives a matter of public record on the internet.

You can hardly fault the banks for using stuff people make publicly available.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[memojuez]

Both the Mortgage Broker and the Lender are required to pull credit history reports and review all the other financial details already available at the initiation of the loan process. Loan Applicants also are usually compelled to sign paperwork enabling the Lending Institution the right to pull and review their Income Tax records directly from the IRS as part of the credit worthy, income to debt ratio.

Most investors rely on the fact that the initiating parties have done their homework as opposed to them undertaking the onerous task of auditing every individual applicant included in the package that tended to number in the thousands.

The reliability of Social Networks as a gauge of person, even who his/her/its said friends are is flawed. Most people to live "larger than IRL" in their online persona even when they are participating with their real identity. Who they friend may or may not always be indicative of their actual station in life. At least that has been my experience.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[PlusFiveTroll]

If people don't want their information to be used that way, well maybe they shouldn't make their lives a matter of public record on the internet.

Yea, when the bank goes to check your online social history you'll be punished for not having one. "OMG, a social recluse!, probably a terrorist, lets report them to the FBI." With the way things are going these days, do you expect anything less batshit crazy?

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Anonymous Coward]

hurrrrrrr, did you read GP post? GP said that the company is going to lose potential profits from doing stuff with ppls with q's, and you seem to agree with him! In fact, your only disagreement seems to stem from your erroneous assumption that missing out on a small portion of your potential customers leads to missing out on a large check of potential profits.

derp.

i bet you also think that a restaurant that doesn't let black people go to it would lose enough business to not want to do that, or an army that doesnt let gay people be in it wouldn't have enough people to take over iraq.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[the_humeister]

Please explain where these so-called mandates to issue no-document subprime loans were enacted in law. The fact is that these mandates didn't exist.

There is no law saying exactly that. But there were certain mandates set forth in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, with amendments throughout the decades, that gave rise to what we have today. There's quite a bit of blame to spread around, but it all starts back in 1977.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[vux984]

There is no law saying exactly that. But there were certain mandates set forth in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, with amendments throughout the decades, that gave rise to what we have today. There's quite a bit of blame to spread around, but it all starts back in 1977.

Firstly, the majority of the problematic loans were made by organizations who were not subject CRA rules. So why exactly is CRA responsible for "making them issue bad loans" when the vast majority of bad loans were made by companies who were exempt from the supposed CRA rules that "mandated" it.

Secondly, commercial real-estate loans are also in bad shape, and full of the same problems. Commercial real-estate is also completely outside the scope of CRA rules. So why were bad loans being made on commercial real estate when there were no rules "mandating" it.

Thirdly, the CRA didn't "mandate" bad loans. Period. And any reading of it that says it did is intellectually dishonest.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[sjames]

Too bad, all the lenders use the same ratings agency and so, the same voodoo numbers based on the same poor quality data that somehow linked your history with some deadbeat in another state. NO AMERICAN DREAM FOR YOU!

As for the problem in 2008, they KNEW the risks. They just talked buyers into an EVEN RISKIER (but more profitable for them) situation and made sure to sell off the loan (as a AAA bond) long before the time-bomb went off.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[sjames]

If they managed to ignore the rather obvious red flag that the couple didn't even gross as much as the loan payment, I fail to see why their friends not managing it either would make much difference.

The financial crisis has/had little to do with consumers. The fraud was rampant through the system with a bunch of people knowingly playing musical chairs. They just happened to have a plan that made sure they would have a chair when the music stopped. As it turns out, there still weren't quite enough chairs, so they extorted enough to buy a few more from the very people they were foreclosing (through their taxes).

No money disappeared in the economic meltdown, it all went into people's pockets. The problem is that a lot of people's money went into only a few pockets. The owners of those few pockets would appreciate it very much if you would blame your neighbors instead.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[sjames]

Sure, the problem is the people with the gold plated platinum credit ratings they bought the loans from turned out to be frauds. Had the buyer's known what crooks the lending banks were this wouldn't have happened.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[sjames]

You have been had. The government NEVER mandated or even suggested handing out loans to people who couldn't pay them back. It certainly never suggested trying to fit first time buyers into a McMansion.

The second part is accurate enough though. There were a lot of hot potato loans out there that were fraudulently spun into AAA derivatives. Why there's been so little effort to prosecute them, I can only guess.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[sjames]

And according to your ties to them, neither should you. I guess you didn't fully escape after all.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Faerunner]

Better risk analysis wouldn't have helped with the attitude of many people that "The market isn't going to crash", "Subprime lending is going to work out just fine", and "If it gets too bad we'll just pass the debt on to someone else!".

Knowledge is great, but without insight it becomes meaningless.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Anonymous Coward]

The Big Three have been the Big Three for the past 20+ years because Fannie Mae requires, in its federally backed mortgage application, 3 distinct credit sources. When that policy/law went into effect, hundreds/thousands of local credit bureaus around the country went out of business/ went into collections, and our current housing bubble was born.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Hognoxious]

The problem is that there is so much (free) money going around that the people who are in a position to lend have run out of ideas for investments.

O Rly?

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/aug2010/sb20100830_829624.htm

Generally speaking, we found more demand for loans among business owners. And among the banks that responded to our survey, 72 percent indicated that the number of loan applications they received had increased during the last six months. So there's demand for capital. Something's not quite sitting right when we hear from the banks that there's no demand.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/12/90309/too-small-to-succeed-firms-still.html

Yet when Collins approached the bank about borrowing at least $500,000 to expand his 12-employee firm -- which retrofits buildings with energy efficient technologies -- he was rebuffed, told that his company lacks resources and collateral. US Bancorp declined comment.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[Jiro]

Names containing the letter Q are just an example. It's easy to prove discrimination against names containing the letter 'Q'. It's much harder to prove discrimination based on complicated but ultimately bogus loan criteria. And the person rejected will just get rejected without being told why, so there's nothing he can tell his friends.

Re:Financial Meltdown

[CodeBuster]

The money from the housing crisis isn't gone. On the contrary, even more money has been made available.

That is absolutely positively wrong. The fiat monetary systems currently in use in all modern economies combined with fractional reserve banking mean that most of the money supply at any one time exists not as actual paper bills or coins or even demand deposits at banks, but rather as debt instruments which do not have guaranteed value until the point of liquidation. If borrowers can no longer service their debts and extinguish them in bankruptcy, then the money or credit that was created by those debts is likewise extinguished. Most of the money that was created by new debt during the housing bubble was not banked as demand deposits at banking institutions (it couldn't be because the banking insurance schemes only insure depositors up to a fixed maximum amount), but rather loaned out again and again with the previous debts booked as capital reserves to back new loans. That is why the Federal Reserve and other central banks were trying desperately to keep all of these loans from going bad at once, because that would result in a very rapid contraction of the total monetary supply and associated nastiness (i.e. bank runs, liquidations, depression, etc). If you are interested in a more detailed, albeit simplified, explanation of how this works then might I suggest Money as Debt?

Re:Financial Meltdown

[the eric conspiracy]

If you look at the issuance rates of sub-prime loans you will find a remarkable coincidence - the rapid increase in generation of these loans is at the same time the capital requirements on large investment banks were lowered. With mortgage securitization fed by the immense amounts of money made available through increased leverage this crisis would have never happened. Blaming it on the CRA which happened nearly 20 years earlier is ludicrous.

I don't keep online company.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the goto guy for computer buying advice among my friends and acquaintances though. Judge that.

Re:I don't keep online company.

[hedwards]

Ironic given that you apparently do your programming in MS Basic.

Re:I don't keep online company.

[internettoughguy]

I cant see where you've comefrom with that joke.

Dag Nabbit!

[anguirus.x]

I don't want to be processed by SkyNet for the sake of advertising!!!!

Nice knowing you...

[pedantic bore]

From now on, I'm going to use a pseudonym here. If my employer knew I read slashdot, he'd probably expect me to fix the computers around the office or something.

Re:Nice knowing you...

[roman_mir]

Mmmmm, Mr. Bore, we have to talk. Have you seen the new cover for the TPS reports? I will need you to come to work on Saturday. Oh, and I will need you to go ahead and come to work on Sunday as well.

Hmmm

[symes]

I always search for any prospective employee online these days. I'm not sure whether this is right or wrong - it's just I don't want some problem around the corner that could have been predicted. That said, I am yet to find anything of interest on anyone... suggesting that so long as you are sensible with your online presence then you're probably ok. I do think having a social network is a plus - but material such as "I torture animals", and "omg, my crack habit is way out of control" would probably weigh somewhat negatively. I think it is all a bit over-hyped - at the end of the day, if someone is good then a few over-the-top parties aren't going to make a big difference ont he employability front. As for insurers, I am surprised, acturaries are supposed to be switched on and I fail to see how a very selective subsample, the online community, can be used meaningfully in calculating risk.

Re:Hmmm

[foobsr]

... I fail to see how a very selective subsample, the online community, can be used meaningfully in calculating risk.

Agreed, but even 'science' relies on statistics without being able to come up with meaningful theories. Rating companies will care a lot less if there is a chance for profit with whatever dubious score they calculate from their 'analysis'.

CC.

Re:Hmmm

[AnonymousClown]

Not only that, I'm just waiting for the day when not having an online social network will be considered a "bad" thing. Kind of like how not having a credit history makes you a: bad credit risk - worse than having bad credit, unemployable, a terrorist (the TSA does credit checks when flying to see if you a "risk"), etc...

Re:Hmmm

[vadim_t]

Everybody with half a brain does their weird stuff under an alias, and uses their real name only for things a potential employer won't mind seeing.

The especially careful ones may be posting under impossible to google real names, like "Alice" or "John Smith", adopting ridiculously common nicknames like "Naruto", and having a separate identity for each community that they belong to.

This is something most people figured out many years ago, and not just because of employment. Many children don't want their parents coming across the stuff they do online, and I for instance made sure of it.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Cowpat]

that's all very well, but what about those without half a brain?

Surely, it's not in society's interests that 30% (say) of the population are as good as unemployable, because they can't be discreet on Facebook.

Re:Hmmm

[ScrewMaster]

Not only that, I'm just waiting for the day when not having an online social network will be considered a "bad" thing. Kind of like how not having a credit history makes you a: bad credit risk - worse than having bad credit, unemployable, a terrorist (the TSA does credit checks when flying to see if you a "risk"), etc...

So what if it does? Just post a few nice pictures of yourself with your family and be done with it. Hell, make up anything you want about yourself that you think a prospective employer would want to read.

Re:Hmmm

[sconeu]

I wouldn't try that in Germany if I were you.

Re:Hmmm

[ScrewMaster]

but material such as "I torture animals", and "omg, my crack habit is way out of control" would probably weigh somewhat negatively.

Somewhat negatively? I suppose there are a few jobs where animal torturers and crack addicts would fit in, but not many.

Re:Hmmm

[GrumblyStuff]

Sorry, you didn't cover for your friend's farm in Farmville enough. We're not sure you're the type of person we can rely on. Thanks. Bye.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If the employee lacks half a brain, why would I want to hire him? Something tells me that this is the same demographic that is lucky to have a job flipping burgers at present.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I do think having a social network is a plus - but material such as "I torture animals", and "omg, .my crack habit is way out of control" would probably weigh somewhat negatively.

Damn. Not much I can do about the animal torturing but I've upated to "crack habit now mostly under control". Any more tips?

Re:Hmmm

[sjames]

Apparently you are tempering what you find with reasonability. That's more rare than you think. There have already been publicized cases of people fired for ONE perfectly legal but over the top party on a social networking site.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Cowpat]

you might not want to, but society as a whole needs you to or we'll have a large proportion of the population being little more than a dead weight on the rest.

But..

[Anonymous Coward]

i have no friends :[

Re:But..

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the club!
Although no one has called me in 20 years that wasn't looking to get one of their electronic items repaired..... I'm sure it will happen sometime........
hello.....
hello.....

Did Mom envision Social Network Analytics?

[OrangeCatholic]

Silly, Mom invented social network analytics.

http://mashable.com/2010/07/02/futurama-apple-twitter/

a href="http://www.dreamjerseysshop.com/nfl-jerse

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, my friend!

Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

This approach doesn't work well at all for the many managers and executives who lean towards right-wing "ideals". They're too preoccupied by socially stigmatizing certain traits that they'll end up intentionally skipping many of the best candidates if they do in-depth research like that, especially into the personal lives of prospective employees.

For example, one of the best Ruby developers I know is a raging homosexual. I'm not saying that in a negative way, or because he uses Ruby, or because he only uses Apple hardware. I'm saying that because he very flamboyant. In the past, his Facebook status messages have said stuff like "Back later. Taking black cock up my arse." or "Sperm: my favorite flavor."

Anyway, if you looked at just his code and his employment history, you'd see that he was a great developer who could write excellent software. If you interviewed him, you'd probably get the hint that he's homosexual. If you looked at his Facebook profile, there'd be no doubt.

I don't think that many right-leaning managers would be able to hire somebody like him after seeing his Facebook profile. His blatant homosexuality would probably trigger the guilt those managers feel regarding their own repressed homosexuality, and they just wouldn't hire him, although skill-wise he was clearly the best candidate for the job. At least left-leaning managers tend to be more open to individualism among their employees.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I would hesitate to hire someone who publicly posts graphic sexual comments intended to shock. Something about indications of a basic personality defect... The compulsion to shove your sexual preferences (whether raging homo or right-wing repressed hetero) into other peoples' faces, is sick.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[tomhudson]

1. Create multiple dummy accounts, all saying what a wonderful person you are, the next Mother Theresa, hard-working, modest to a fault, inherited $N million but refuse to touch the capital, and donate the interest to charity and PACs for the tax deductions (along with some thank-yous from fake bishops and pastors, and a few aids to influential politicians for your generous financial contributions), etc. - throw in a couple of "previous employers" who still keep in touch because they want you to go back to work for them.
2. Let employers, banks, etc. do their searches.
3. PROFIT! BIG TIME!

My point? Any system they can make can be gamed.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[digitig]

Hmm. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I would hesitate to hire someone who publicly posts graphic sexual comments intended to shock. Something about indications of a basic personality defect... The compulsion to shove your sexual preferences (whether raging homo or right-wing repressed hetero) into other peoples' faces, is sick.

Who says they're meant to shock? Within his social circles that could well be normal banter, and the fact that in an interview the most you'd get would be the "hint" that he's homosexual shows that he's aware that it's inappropriate for the workplace and is able to maintain proper professional standards there -- clearly not shoving his sexuality in the face of those who don't want to know. The fact that you think it's designed to shock and see it as a problem says more about your attitudes than his suitability for the job.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[chichilalescu]

this is not interesting, it's stupid. a woman posting stuff like this would have problems too. I doubt the parent is telling the truth.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear this type of rationalizing from the left, that they are somehow more open to people of various flavors.

Then I see their portrayal of everyone from supporters of the tea party to conservative Christians, and wonder if left-leaning management wouldn't even entertain the idea of discriminating against said members.

Sorry bub, the left are just as fucked up and flawed as anyone else.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that many right-leaning managers would be able to hire somebody like him after seeing his Facebook profile. His blatant homosexuality would probably trigger the guilt those managers feel regarding their own repressed homosexuality, and they just wouldn't hire him, although skill-wise he was clearly the best candidate for the job. At least left-leaning managers tend to be more open to individualism among their employees.

I'd actually be reluctant to hire anybody who makes a habit out of publicly posting graphic messages which are clearly intended simply to shock or provoke. Whether it's the frat boy who posts updates like, "That bitch had the hairiest pussy I've ever eaten, I'm still coughing up hair!" or your friend posting "Worst. cum. burp. ever!", I would seriously question that person's ability to integrate into a diverse team of people without engaging in their obvious desire to shock, titillate, and provoke. It would have nothing to do with "he's gay," and everything to do with "this guy has clearly never learned the difference between private and professional behaviors."

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[coryking]

I don't think that many right-leaning managers would be able to hire somebody like him after seeing his Facebook profile

Why would you want to work for somebody Ike that anyway? It would be clear from the start the two of you wouldn't be a good fit.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[ScrewMaster]

I don't think that many right-leaning managers would be able to hire somebody like him after seeing his Facebook profile. His blatant homosexuality would probably trigger the guilt those managers feel regarding their own repressed homosexuality, and they just wouldn't hire him, although skill-wise he was clearly the best candidate for the job. At least left-leaning managers tend to be more open to individualism among their employees.

Left-leaning, right-leaning ... those are just words.

What it comes down to is that you have no idea what prejudices a potential employer has. You can't, so it's always best to play things close to the vest. Matter of fact, that's good advice even after you're hired: just go to work, do your job well, and then go home to your private life. You're not being paid to express your inner self: you're being paid to do a job. Truth is, though, your average employer is not going to give a damn about your bizarro personal life, whether you like your asshole reamed by throbbing meaty cocks, that you're into hamster-stuffing, that you're a heavy-duty partier, or any of the myriad other oddball things people are into ... as long as you don't rub his or her face in it. Remember, that employer has to worry about how you are going to affect the other people who work for him or her, and will also be concerned about what his boss thinks about who he hires. Furthermore, no matter how valuable you may think you are, how much you believe an employer should overlook your particular peculiarities, in today's job market odds are he has another resume just as impressive as yours sitting on his desk, from someone who made a much better first impression.

What's troubling a lot of job seekers nowadays is that they're finding out their online presence has already made that impression for them. Is that right or wrong? Well, your online presence is largely your own responsibility: you put it out there, and you can't really blame an interviewer for trying to find out all they can about a candidate. Keep in mind that resumes, job interviews, and for that matter Facebook pages provide only limited information to a potential employer. Thus, it behooves you, the candidate, to be very, very careful with your presentation. Think twice about what you post about yourself. It may very well come back to haunt you.

Some people that feel they have the right to be free to express their true selves wherever they may be. To a great extent, that is true in the U.S. However, those same people often think they should be equally free of other people's opinions of them ... and that's just foolish. The law says that you cannot be discriminated against for certain attributes, true, but says nothing at all about most other things. Fact is, if you behave or appear too far outside the norm, you are going to limit your employability in most cases. A prospective employer doesn't have to tell you that it's your sexual preferences, your body modifications, your ink, your purple striped hair, the drunken photos of you on your Facebook page, or indeed anything that contributed to his decision to hire someone else. He just won't call you back for that second interview. Look, that's just the way it is, and denying it is like spittin' into the wind.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Hognoxious]

Who says they're meant to shock? Within his social circles that could well be normal banter

If you post things on facebook and the like your social circle is effectively 8000 miles in diameter.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[funkatron]

I probably shouldn't bite but I will. GP talked about stuff you don't choose (gay), you talked about stuff you can choose (conservative Christian, tea party). It's not exactly the same thing is it?

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Hognoxious]

Why would you want to work for somebody Ike that anyway?

Just a wild guess: being able to afford a home and food.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Hognoxious]

The right tend to have similar prejudices; basically they hate anyone who isn't white, christian and middle class.

The left on the other hand are more fragmented and divided - to the extent that you can get contradictory opinions in a sample of one.

I'd say rightwing prejudices are worse, because the left can't even agree on what theirs are, hence they're more likely to cancel out.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[tomhudson]

No, it's the use of material that was for friends out of context that is sick.

Ever said "I'm so mad at you right now I could kill you?" Did you actually kill them? No. Context is important.

Ever tell a joke to someone that wouldn't be appropriate in mixed company? Ever curse?

Ever discuss your personal demons on-line, either to get help, or to help someone else?

What about making judgment include not just the postings, but the pictures? We talked about ageism in I.T. a week ago - how about sexism? It's kind of hard to make a point in a meeting when people are looking at your boobs or your legs or your ass, and not what you're writing on the white board, but this is a VERY common experience. Is someone going to be denied a job "because they'll just distract the guys?" (Don't laugh - one employer swore he would NEVER again hire a woman for that very reason. Illegal? Depends on how much money each side has for lawyers, and whether you were carrying a recorder at the time).

People are still judged on their appearance - extending that to who their on-line friends are is stupid. It's the same school of "new new economy analytics" that gave us the "financial tools" to melt down the economy in the first place. Snake-oil.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably shouldn't bite but I will. GP talked about stuff you don't choose (gay)

Myself I think that sometimes gay is not a choice, and sometimes it is a choice. Meaning that there may well be a genetic component that causes a predilection for homosexuality, in addition someone who did not have this genetic component might very well choose to be homosexual due to environmental influences.

I don't really think the roots of homosexuality can be definitively said to be exclusively genetic or exclusively environmental.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

How you choose express something is entirely within your realm of control.

Unless you want to argue to flamboyant displays and "Back later. Taking black cock up my arse" statements on your facebbok account are just inherent to being gay.

Beyond that, I'd argue things that are specifically chosen instead of inherent to an individual carry more relevance (and therefore should be at least equivalently protected), as they speak more directly to the persona of the person.

Finally, I'd refer you back to the idea of prejudice- neither being flamboyantly gay nor being a conservative Christian speaks in any manner to your work performance, nor does being left or right speak in any manner to how much of an asshole you can be when faced with someone who doesn't reflect your ideas.

You are grasping.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[tomhudson]

"It would have nothing to do with "he's gay," and everything to do with "this guy has clearly never learned the difference between private and professional behaviors.""

You're not on the clock 24 hours a day. What you do in your own time is your own business. As long as they act professional while on the job, unless they're doing something notoriously illegal outside the job, it's simply not the employers business.

In other words, it's employers who need to learn the difference between private and professional behaviours.

You should not be judged based on your gender, whether you have children living at home or not, marital status, skin colour, sexual preference, religion or lack thereof, mother tongue, ethnic background, physical appearance, handicap, or means to palliate a handicap, social status, financial state, or any other bogus "metric." As long as you are qualified to do the job, none of this matters, and employers should not be using this as part of their hiring criteria.

Example: Employers try to find out if women have children living at home - this *might* cause them to take a day off to tend to a sick kid. Funny how it's not an issue with men, isn't it?

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think those comments would have been made to be "shocking" or "provocative". You need to realize that the gay community is very different from the Fundamentalist Christian upbringing you were obviously subjected to.

I'm originally from the Deep South, but working in San Francisco for a few years gave me the opportunity to learn about the gay culture in the city. They generally aren't as uptight about most things. They don't see anything wrong with openly talking about penises or anal sex or eating semen, for instance. Professing one's love for the taste of male ejaculate in San Francisco is no different than somebody in Birmingham, Alabama professing their love for Jesus.

Those just look like statements of fact to me. Saying "Back later. Taking black cock up my arse." is no different than saying "Back later. Watching NASCAR."

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Attila Dimedici]

You mean the way that people who express disagreement with left wing talking points have trouble getting jobs at many universities. You know like the guy who was fired by the University of Illinois for explaining Catholic teachings on homosexuality to a student in his class on Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thoughtl?

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Patch86]

Why don't people understand that posting things on a publicly accessible website is publishing it to the world, as sure as sending out a mass mailer.

If I wrote a book titled "Tales of a dope-smoking man-whore", I would have every expectation that it might lower me in the eyes of a certain sort of person, and might harm my employment prospects with firms who don't want to be associated with promiscuity and drugs.

If I write a detailed blog saying the same, I would expect the same.

Twitter, Facebook, etc., are all exactly the same. If you post things on there, be prepared that the public may judge you, and you may not like it.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[sjames]

I'm not disagreeing that what you say is the way it works, but it certainly is not the way it needs to work. Essentially you are saying that the only way to not have personal life interfere with professional is to not have a personal life.

Employers searching around the personal networking sites is no different than donning a disguise and stalking the prospective employee for a while. Many people do many things that they do not and never will bring to work. That defines professionalism. Let people be judged for work based on what they bring to work. If employers want to control the behavior of employees 24/7 let them pay for the privilege.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[sjames]

Actually, if you're digging around on social sites to learn about someone's professional suitability, it's YOU that never learned the difference between personal and professional behaviors.

If they bring that sort of behavior into the workplace, THEN they have failed.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[ScrewMaster]

Essentially you are saying that the only way to not have personal life interfere with professional is to not have a personal life.

Not at all, unless your personal life revolves solely around what you post on a Web page somewhere. What I'm saying is that, if you want to participate in social networking, take steps to make sure it doesn't interfere with your professional life. That might mean, for example, taking the very simple precaution of not using your real name on social networking sites. Take me, for instance. Do you think my real name is ScrewMaster? Sure, if someone really wants to know who I am, they can probably find out: I've been online for a long time. But here's the thing: if you know that people you'd rather not find you are trolling for you online, make it hard for them. Raise the bar. The average HR type isn't going to make a concerted effort to find you: he'll just cruise a couple of the major sites for your real name, and if he doesn't find anything, move on to the next thing.

This is not rocket science people: you just have to learn to take a few precautions. Most folks don't, I admit, until after they've been caught flatfooted.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[sjames]

I fail to see the difference between that and suggesting that people wear a disguise and use a fake name when they go out socially just in case the boss is an extremely nosey closet prohibitionist with way too much free time.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[ScrewMaster]

I fail to see the difference between that and suggesting that people wear a disguise and use a fake name when they go out socially just in case the boss is an extremely nosey closet prohibitionist with way too much free time.

In principle? Very little. In practice, the convenience and ubiquity of the Web make taking some precautions worthwhile. That's the natural consequence of having such tremendous connectedness in our lives. Face it, every major technological advance since the invention of fire (and probably even before that) has offered benefits, and also had associated risks. This is no different, and those who refuse to accept that and modify their behavior accordingly tend to get burned.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[sjames]

I agree that in practice as things are now, your suggestions may be for the best. In principle, we need to do a lot of growing up socially in order to not have the connectedness abused. Unless and until that happens, perhaps employers (and creditors) should not be legally permitted to examine social networking. I say this because the principle is not an acceptable state of affairs.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[stephanruby]

And then, there is the opposite problem: Guys who are so deathly afraid of what others think of them, that they are some of the most boring people around. No doubt, some of them can be great employees as well, but too much blandness can also be considered a bad thing.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

My, what a bunch of open-minded loving people we are! Thought exercise:

Joe Smith comes in and interviews for a job that your flaming homosexual friend (let's call him Fred) is the hiring manager for. Now, after the interview, Fred does a quick search on Facebook for Joe Smith, and finds out he's an apparently-devout member of a very conservative baptist church in town. The only thing that would have given him away is his southern accent and the fact that he was wearing a crucifix. But now that we know he's one of "those" people, think he's going to get the job, brah?

Let's stop with the "right wing people are the only people who want to be around people like themselves," bullshit. It's human nature to form bonds based on common traits, and to "sort" ourselves into these groupings. Which is why it's not surprising that a very-openly-gay manager here at my company also - surprise surprise! - has 2 (also openly) gay guys that work for him, and the rest of his staff is female.

Re:Doesn't work for right-leaning managers.

[ScrewMaster]

I agree that in practice as things are now, your suggestions may be for the best.

I wish it were different, but if wishes were horses even beggars would ride.

Unless and until that happens, perhaps employers (and creditors) should not be legally permitted to examine social networking. I say this because the principle is not an acceptable state of affairs.

The problem will never go away. And it really isn't a problem that government needs to be involved in, especially since the Internet is a world-wide phenomenon anyway. Your image is one of your best assets, and how you protect and nurture that asset is up to you. That's always been the case: you don't see the government telling employers that they can't take into account how a potential employee presents him or her-self at an interview, how he or she dresses, whether he or she trims her fingernails or has body odor ... those are all fair game in the interview process. What you put out there on Facebook is also legitimately fair game. You published it on the Web for God's sake.

Frankly, in this connected world there are good reasons to know how a potential employee handles his or her online presence. Keep in mind that a person who is indiscreet and posts compromising text or images online about themselves may do the same thing to the employer. This is not a trivial issue, not anymore. Discretion is a virtue, especially in a world full of personal Web pages and blogs.

Look, you wouldn't open an online bank account with a password of "123" would you? Would you? Proper use of social networking sites is no different: in both cases you have valuable information to which you don't want just anyone to gain access. How you protect that information is up to you, but expecting to just put it out there and have people who have a vested interest in reviewing it to just ignore it is ... unrealistic. At best.

In principle, we need to do a lot of growing up socially in order to not have the connectedness abused.

I look at Facebook and the like as being similar to what my mother used to say when my brother and I were playing with BB guns as kids: "It's all in good fun until someone loses an eye." Well, we're not talking about eyes here, but the point is that having fun can have consequences. Learning that is a part of growing up too.

Stupidity without limits

[syousef]

There are a lot of people that will let anyone be their online friend. After all you don't have to be around them physically, and as long as you're reasonably careful with details like your real address there tend to be few consequence for letting someone unsavoury onto a list of friends. What's more you can usually remove them again any time you like. Yes you can end up doing illegal things with company you meet online but in most cases you'd need to actively pursue it. That's nothing like the real world. In the real world you can get beaten up, robbed or killed just by socialising with the wrong people. You can be forced to commit crimes through threats and blackmail.

If the morons in a HR or marketing department don't understand that they need to have their pay reduced by a factor of 10. This stupidity has to stop somewhere. Social networking analysis may yield some useful data in terms of tracking people with common interests, but beyond that it's just a silly game of 6 degrees of separation minus Kevin Bacon.

Re:Stupidity without limits

[drolli]

> There are a lot of people that will let anyone be their online friend.

They are idiots. Letting somebody be your friend gives rise to all kinds of funny attacks, starting with the fact that usually your friends see/are notified when you are online (ok, there are enough social network where everybody sees that)... and continuing that you may be more exposed to injection vulnerabilities of the social; network you are using... going to that the person may get a much better clue who are your other friends... to last but not least messing up the originally good idea that people with many friends are somewhat more likely to be a real character....

That said, there are a lot of idiots.

Re:Stupidity without limits

[KingAlanI]

I admit I go a bit crazy with followers/following on Twitter, but I long since figured I was smart to only use Facebook for people I know in real life (maybe a few close online contacts, especially those I later see in RL [such as talking with someone on a fansite and later meeting them at a concert]

Re:Stupidity without limits

[syousef]

Many (perhaps most) simply don't care about the sorts of attacks you are talking about.

Re:Stupidity without limits

[drolli]

They don't care about it even if they help scammers with this. They don't care about that people know when they are home and when not and what expensive equipment to look for (as an insurance i would refuse to pay for damages). How many things do you want to give people stalking you at their hands to threaten you?

As i said: Idiots.

Yes, i know i may seem paranoid. i have seen enough not to reconsider my position for a second. I try actually never to disclose any information which could identify me. Who needs to know will know when he need to know something about me. In the end what can i buy from hundred friend on Facebook? In my experience the number of persons you can count on is limited to below a handful. People thinking they have hundred friends have a problem with reality.

Re:Stupidity without limits

[syousef]

You do seem extremely paranoid, and also overly confident in your abilities to cover your tracks online.

I'll bet you're the kind of guy that has an unlisted phone number and refuses to give it out unless absolutely necessary. The sort of person that would worry about paying by credit card even at a reputable store because it might be copied.

But I bet you follow a regular enough routine that anyone that actually wanted to stalk you would be able to drive by your house a few times and get a very good feel for when you are and aren't home. Heck you probably don't even need to do that: If you work a regular job you're probably not around between 9 and 5. I guess all insurers should refuse to pay if you hold a regular job and are robbed between 9 and 5?

Since you're paranoid, I'd also bet you don't have a social life worth spitting on. Do you really think you're smarter than all those people you're calling idiots for just having a friend list that includes people they don't know terribly well???

If you're on social networking sites every moment that you're home so that people can tell whenever y ou're online or if you post sensitive information to people you do know on a social networking site, you're not secure and you have bigger issues than who's going to rob you. Get a dog, get an alarm, and go live a little.

Re:Stupidity without limits

[drolli]

i don't cover tracks online. i just don't leave them intentionally. I use the same pseudonym everywhere and i don't change it. i normally dont use credit cards and i would not know why somebody would need more than my e-mail address.

Regarding stalking: the more powerful thing than trying to follow you could be to call at your workplace and complain about you by mixing a little bit of truth with a little bit of lies. Some workplaces don't react kind if some woman calls and tells your boss you owe her money. In the worst case he believes that in the best case you may nearly wash of the false (or one-sided) accusations. Now you say: doesn't happen? You have a happy life.

Regarding your comments about my social life: one of the reasons i don't give a shit on the worthless database entry called friend in social networks is because i have real ones. These are the ones which have been in my life for 15-20years and their phone numbers are in my phone list (and no, we are not friend in social networks).

And yes. i call people idiots whose definition of "friend" is "anybody who shits on my farm at farmville". I do that in the same way as i would call people idiots who confuse a Kindergarten teacher reading Winnie the Pooh with an actor playing King Lear by heart, because they want to assure them self something.

And for sure i don't go online automatically; what an absurd idea.

What the one part tells those looking for work

[ComputerGeek01]

If you are currnetly looking for work then it is important that you cut all ties to any charity organizations that you might work\volunteer for with ties poor people, ex-drug addicts, the homeless or the mentally ill. These people may have a bad credit score and if you are associated with them then you will never get a job.

Re:What the one part tells those looking for work

[Americano]

Yes, if you're paranoid and have no notion of how credit scores work, you should do this immediately.

Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe friending Kerligirl13 was a bad idea. I dun goofed!

The definition of due dilligence is on the table

[Zero__Kelvin]

"There is nothing wrong about doing good due diligence before lending money. "

I don't believe that is what people are arguing against. The question is if it actually qualifies as due diligence. Would you really give an atta boy to your local bank when they refused to loan you money because you sometimes talk to that ne'er do well (in their eyes) Johnny down the street?

I really get sick

[rxan]

of all of these whistleblower articles on slashdot these days. Is there nothing else by the constant formula of "Beneficial technology X. But X might and will be used for bad things!" It's always in the same tone. I mean, I've been on this site for about two years now and I'm just starting to get tired of the same old agenda.

Your Nobel winning economists didn't see a thing.

[Colin Smith]

However, the behaviour was predicted in 1912 by a non Nobel winning economist who remains out of fashion, largely because he says you can't have a cake, and eat it as well. Something which doesn't go down too well when the elites are trying to keep the plebs in line.

 

the crooks did their due diligence

[Anonymous Coward]

that is why economy melted and they cashed in

Should make recruitment easier

[horza]

grep -v "facebook group (.*) [emacs|ruby|vb]" crawler.txt > recruitment.txt

Phillip.

I hate credit scores

[AnAdventurer]

If this becomes a everyman's Echelon can we expect a new era of quasi-puritanical social actions? Jesusland anyone?

I hate the credit Houses and scores. I am a small business owner and I go from large cash reserves in August to negative cash by February ever year (this year was the last of that), so I get a credit score flux by 100 points in some weird cycle. My social network for are my volunteer associates (paramedics and rescue operations) and friends that went to a very small New England boarding school who are now spread out around the country. However, last and pertaining to this ./ is the group of punks, hackers, insurgents and general freaks I went to college with in the SF bay area. Most of us still post out latest antics when we pull them (ex: I post my 37mm launcher payload designs for flashbangs, smokers, 2 stage flechettes, and wasp rounds, stuff I would "never" "build" since the ATFE considers them "destructive devices". I only use FB to stay in touch with people I would otherwise not keep up with, I have my account as locked down as possible and have no information other then name and my email address, but I know my data being locked from "non-friends" does not protect it from corps FB make deals with.

Re:Your Nobel winning economists didn't see a thin

[KingAlanI]

who do you mean? names please.
not sure what to feed into Google there.
a lot of economics and 1912 searches turn up Milton Friedman (because that was his birth year) [BTW, Friedman did win the 1976 Nobel]

Re:Your Nobel winning economists didn't see a thin

[Colin Smith]

The Theory of Money and Credit. Published in 1912.

 

Re:Your Nobel winning economists didn't see a thin

[Anonymous Coward]

So why the fuck didn't you say this in the first place? No, you had to try to show off how smart you are by just making a reference to it as if it was common knowledge. Hooray for you!

Re:Your Nobel winning economists didn't see a thin

[KingAlanI]

you said it less politely than I did, but I was thinking much along the same lines.

add this to a long list of things I ought to read sometime...

to whom are you referring?

[Anonymous Coward]

you have not really provided enough information for someone "not in the know" to track down the person you are talking about using google.

searches for "1912 economics" seem to bring up milton freedman, that being the date of his birth.

is there some way to use the terms in your post to design a query which will yield the correct result?