Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Companies That Force Employees To Join Social Networks?
First time accepted submitter rubeon writes "Companies can get a lot of mileage out of social networking services from the likes of Google or Facebook. Chat, document collaboration, and video conferencing using services like Google+ Hangouts or Facebook's Skype are seductive additions to an IT arsenal. But a lot of people have privacy concerns about these services, and there's no shortage of horror stories how these sites track and exploit their users' habits. Would you work for a company that forced its employees to join a social network?"
Create a @ Work account, simple This also means you can easily avoid problems such as this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16338040
If your company is going to require its employees to join a social network for collaboration purposes, grab the Diaspora source and host your own internally.
Other than Facebook itself, and Google, has anyone actually been asked to join a Social Network by their employer?
(No, Gmail does not count).
I've heard of people being asked to follow twitter, but that's hardly a social network, and its far from bidirectional.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Since when does Facebook own Skype?
If I were looking for work, I'd take the job, and just add the bare minimum of details to the site. Get a bit of political clout with the supervisors, then conveniently forget to log in for a week, or a month, or "oh dear, I forgot my password, and I don't know what email account I used to sign up".
Having been unemployed recently, I'd much prefer a paycheck to a bit of already-compromised privacy.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Just introduced here - no-one seems to be 'forcing' us rank-and-file to use it though. I imagine it will disappear in a year or two, as soon as the people who's bright idea it was to introduce it get another bright idea...
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Sure Ill join. Let me create an account real quick tied to my work email.
Why would I have any problem working for a company that forced me to join a social network? I wouldn't join with the same profile that I used personally. I would keep my business activities with the site strictly segregated from my personal persona (if any). But if the cost of losing your privacy as an employee to a google or a Facebook accrues almost entirely to your employer, not to you.
Maybe they can make it a condition of your job to join, but can they really make you use it? Just telling them that you don't post much because you're not that kind of guy or gal would be a hard argument for them to refute.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There are so many things an employee can screw up online, I though most of the corporate and government employers would prefer you not be on a social network.
As for the question - who cares? Business accounts are business accounts. You can blog and facebook and plus all you want for the company with a company account. Just to let your business and personal life (accounts) mix. What's so hard about that?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You just create a "work account". The same way I have a company email account, phone extension, business card. I've carried a pager or been "on call" for certain work-related things in the past.
There are likely other better things to make a big deal out of.
sign up for any other online service like video conferencing etc.
Create account Company_X_employee_2843753875 and use it for work purposes ONLY. Nobody is forcing you to use it at home, do they?
When you leave the company you give them the account and password so there is no BS like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16338040
After all, why can't all us "infidels" and "philistines" demand equal respect for our beliefs? Just because ours are based on the real world (and provable) doesn't mean that they are less deserving of respect than other people's fantasies.
Or join- and to make it interesting, make the first one a suggestion about how the company really needs a better sexual harrassment policy.
And make your second post about how you wonder how the company makes a profit when certain managers are taking 4-hour lunches.
And make your third post ... IF they let the experiment go that far ... about the obvious drug problems.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
I dont think that joining a social network means you are required to post personal information or opinions, I have joined alot of the current and past social networks but it doesnt mean I post private stuff to any of them
Seems obvious that your employer can require that - why not?
Just make sure that you maintain a really clear separation between work data that put into this account and your private life and accounts.
I'd opt for no linkages whatsoever between the two.
I'd also ask specifically what happens to that account and the associated data if you leave the company. You'll want it to be nukeable when you go.
Three Squirrels
You two are really obsessed with each other.. you should really get a room.
I know what you're thinking: that's stupid.. we're both guys, and I'm not gay.
You're confused about your sexuality, and you're feelings for each other. You're concerned about your repressed latent homosexuality.
But this 2012, and most people are ok with other peoples sexual orientation.
So please, will you two just hook up already? The rest of us are getting tired of this BS.
Disclaimer: I work for Jive Software, one of the leading vendors (if not the leading vendor) of Social Business Software, so take it for what you will. I'm just a hosting engineer though - not a marketer.
That said, I think this question actually entails two separate issues. The first one is, will having their employees collaborate socially save them time, money, and energy? I've seen many, many examples of companies coming to depend on social software - there are plenty of examples on Jive's site (and it's not just blowing smoke, I've seen firsthand evidence of this and have even talked to some people on the sales floor who swear by it). Some customers I work with have grown so dependent on social software that they cannot tolerate even a minute of downtime. Social business is, in many ways, the wave of the future, and to criticize companies for trying to get on the bandwagon and realize the benefits for themselves is not something I'm prepared to do.
The other question is: Should the company provide a sandboxed environment for this kind of collaboration, or should they force their employees to use solutions that potentially violate their privacy or have other issues? I'm not going to say that any of the solutions out there such as Facebook have those issues necessarily, but they are obviously very much less sandboxed and do not have the interests of corporate and personal privacy in mind near as much as a vendor whose software can be sandboxed to provide some safety for personal information and company secrets.
At Jive we eat our own dogwood, and we use a social instance of our own software in the company, and I can't imagine working without it. But if a company were to force me to collaborate on publicly available sites where my grandmother (for example) would also post, I'd seriously wonder what they were smoking.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
We have an internal Facebook clone called 'Yammer' which all users are required to join, however it is in no way public and you require an email address within our domain to register or see the content of the network.
I'm fairly young and I already start getting reactions along the line of "Are you a criminal or what?" when I tell people I don't have a facebook profile. Also, I'm pretty sure the police would be watching people without public social network presence for they are hiding something for sure. Fortunately for me, they're probably too lazy to get up from facebook.
I don't use social networks, so don't know a lot of their details. But one complaint that I commonly hear is that people can tag photos of you, and even if you don't have an account, Facebook will link this information together to create a hidden profile of you.
If your employer requires you to use your real name and information when signing up for an external social network, and your friends who use that same social network post pictures and other information about your personal life, is it possible that the network will associate this information with your work account, which will then bring it into your bosses radar?
If it is a private company network, then no problem. But if it is a public social network, it seems like it could create the same sort of problems that occur when bosses force you to friend them with your personal social network account.
I'm asking an honest question here... can anyone elaborate on how a social networking site (not the users of such sites) have "exploited their users' habits"?
The blurb is making it sound like Anne Frank was discovered because she posted on Facebook. I'm just looking for justification of how bad the submitter makes this out to be. For me the closest I've ever felt to "exploited" on any of these sites is a random ad for something I'm a fan of/group member of.
Oh noes! Teh evil Facebook is raping me because I shared my interest in Pink Floyd with them! Someone call the police!
Like in areas of what groups you are part of and other areas that a job can not ask you about.
Now maybe linked in is ok as long as it stays professional and they don't want you to post / talk about lot's of non work stuff that falls under ares covered by discrimination laws.
I wouldn't join with the same profile that I used personally.
Exactly. My work email address is different from my personal one, and likewise for social networks. The profile set up by my employer is used for work purposes only - it's got nothing to do with my personal life.
If you don't like the work you are asked to do, then don't accept the job or leave if you already started.
I'd only work in such a place if I could make up all the details, including the name.
Doubtful. But that policy is garbage. What are they thinking?
Internal corporate networks should be quarantined away from the public web, virus risks and IE6 are enough. If anyone wants to "dial-out" they should be put in on special fire walled terminal with all updates with manager's permission for work purposes only such as orders and e-mails. Any "company" that "requires" social networks deserve to go out of business.
One could just use the account for promoting the company or whatever they want you to use it for while leaving any personal stuff out of it. What would really worry me is not being hired because when they try to do some facebook based background check on me they come up with nothing and figure I must have "something to hide" because "everyone is on there" and only antisocial oddballs are not on facebook
Despite what Fox News might say, we're not a fascist, socialist country here in the United States and you still have the right to tell your employer to go fuck themselves and get another job. There's no monarch/dictator/cabal/regime telling you where you can and cannot work. An employer in the United States CANNOT force you to do anything that you don't want to do, because you can leave the company and get another job. The whole issue is ridiculous. Even if you did not want to quit, the state in which you live may have labor laws to protect you from such abuse of personal privacy making it impossible for them to enforce such an offensive policy. So, no, a company cannot force you to do anything you don't want to, and you can possibly defend yourself and keep that job if you want.
I don't know about you guys, but I have no problem keeping my mind busy on long weekends, stuff like this enver crosses my mind!
Sounds great to me. You can post all your professional stuff on the work account. Make yourself look competent and au fait with all the latest buzzwords, make it in to an advertisement for someone to come hire you at higher salary. Make sure your "bio" is prominent and slap your resume in there.
Sign up with a new account and compartmentalize your activities appropriately.
Unless a network enforces one account per individual.
With different emails, profiles, behaviors, etc how would they notice? Likes, interests, posts etc should be completely segregated between professional and personal. Maybe use different names as well, for example the formal Michael on the business account and the familiar Mike on the personal account. They can't really tell from IP. Maybe Michael is a father's account and Mike is a son's - again, avoid personal info like birthday's etc on the business account. A business account at a particular company has no need to contain birthdays, schools, etc.
no problem, as soon as I get a pay scale raise for it. And a significant one.
otherwise, nope. and if you try to fire me, my lawyer will gladly take the case as it will be highly profitable for him. He likes high profile cases where he can get his buddy at the NBC station to cover it on the news, I usually give him 80% of the judgement so he likes to shoot for the moon on damages and litigation.
Oh you also have one more option. I'll leave now silently for $4.5 million plus taxes on it as a golden parachute, I'll promise to keep my mouth shut.
That covers the bases well. They either drop it, give the raise, or gladly pay off a troublemaker to make him go away before he tells others how he stood up for himself.
Most of the time they drop it because it was some retard MBA in his 20's that though it up.
Honestly, people need to spread the word on these craptastic companies doing this stuff so the rest of us know to avoid them.
but then I'm one of those shitty employees that also shuts off his phone the second he leaves the building and refuses to turn it back on again until the next work day or demand on call pay. I also leave at the end of the work shift time and refuse to work overtime unless asked to do so, that way I have documentation so the scumbags cant try and stiff me.
you know, someone with a backbone. it works well. I last years at every job until I get bored and then I place a call to a headhunter or two telling them I am on the market again and have offers of more pay and better positions within weeks.
If more people stood up for themselves and understood that THEY are doing the company a favor by bringing their Expert skills to work every day, there would be fewer scumbag companies out there.
It would be kind of creepy if my boss wanted me to join FetLife. Then again, it might be a really cool place to work. /Hey, the captcha was 'Lawsuit'.
This has come up twice so far. Both times have been to require all full time employees (49% or less are exempt, as well as intermittent are exempt) to create a Facebook and Twitter account using their real names (if they do not already have one), provide real company contact information, and follow/join corporate groups. We have been very lucky that it has been shot down each time it has been brought up. I fear that it is only a matter of time before a VP decides to push the issue himself and then will be pushed through. Half the group didn't blink an eye about it, the other half are deeply entrenched against it. I fall on the side of completely against forcing an employee to join a public social network with their real identity.
No, I work as a contractor, so the people I work for... get this concept.... pay me to do defined work for them. In a general sense, the employers I've worked for (not as a contractor) in the past, the kind of employers I've worked for are the kind of employers that would a) Probably not even consider something like requiring people to do much of anything that's not strictly work-related. b) if they did come up with an idea like this, it'd be a suggestion and not a strict requirement.
Yes, if I did end up for working for someone who insisted, I'd first tell them about the privacy implications of this decision, as well as informing them that sites such as Facebook have been known for "unchecking" privacy checkboxes, so it shouldn't be used for anything you wouldn't mind getting out to the public. Then if they still insist I'd load that account up with.. well, address would be the address of the company. Phone number would be work phone only, and if I don't have one it'd be the front office number. Work E-Mail address. And so on. And then, most likely, I'd never use it again. If it transpired that people within the office -- let's face it, this wouldn't happen outside an office environment -- if it transpired that people within the office DID start using it, I suppose I'd use it. Just like E-Mail, or phone, or text messaging, I would not be roped into being *expected* to check it outside of work, but at work? Sure.
bonch, you are a highly obnoxious little shit
I distance my work and personal stuff, but they wanted me to follow them, so I did.... no big loss. I've got sufficiently non-mainstream opinions on enough stuff that they really don't want me tying things tight anyway... what with my whole (9-11 was an inside job, Ron Paul for President, Cold Fusion really works, Back to the Gold Standard, we're in the Greater Depression) view of the world... it's non-corporate friendly (besides, corporations aren't people anyway).
I'll patiently wait for JPM and the FED to implode while I read back issues of the stuff from the time monks for a very long time before anyone wants me to be their corporation's friend. ;-)
Be sufficiently human, and only other humans will want to around.... and some will value you highly. Heck, one might even help you make other humans. ;-)
With different emails, profiles, behaviors, etc how would they notice?
For one thing, correlations between people tagged in the same photo.
avoid personal info like birthday's etc on the business account.
As I understand it, all major social networks operating in the United States collect date of birth to be COPPA compliant.
Ok, any company that asks you to join Facebook isn't even a legitimate business in my opinion. There are tools like WebEx they can use for chat, video, etc. They can also use Skype (including Skype for Business), without requiring any "social network". They could install SameTime or some other Jabber (or iChat) server, and/or even use Google Apps for email and all those tools on the cheap. If they are so hard up for money (and lax in security) that they are asking you to use FaceBook to save costs, then you should probably be seeking new employment.
As long as they let me be Rumpelstiltskin.
...damned if you don't?
So, first people complain that their employer is blocking or limiting their internet access because they spend too much time on Facebook, now they're complaining that they're forced to sign up for a Facebook account? Oh boy...
Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
Facebook et.al. are data collection mechanisms coated over with a thin veneer of "social networking" in order to convince people to willingly surrender their own data. An employer stipulating employee presence on them clearly knows little (and understands less) about basic security principles, and clearly does not value the privacy of its employees. I think the proper response isn't "no", it's "hell no" and a visit to one's attorney in order to prepare for litigation.
No way in hell! Never!!
This exact topic recently came up at a local Inn of Court, and after a bit of discussion, the consensus among the judges and attorneys present was that the company would be liable for all the stupid things the employee did with that social network account.
There is a real reason companies typically have one single spokesman and many have a PR department.
Within companises the CEO must keep tabs on his nearest enemies ... the CFO, COO and COB.
In order to thawart their manuvers, the CEO targets the ... underlings ... for ... amusement.
Why?
The CFO, COO and COB have no interest or ability in anything connected to a ... computer.
They, must rely on their suculent ... underlings.
Ergo, the battle plan of the CEO is layed on the table.
Sad that Corporations must engage in such internal strife ... investigate SONY for details.
Sad that such strife also is invasive to the workings of governments ... GREECE, GERMANY, FRANCE, ICELAND, USA ...
Oh well. Perhaps these petty bastard will in time find their head firmly planted on a stick and displayed to all, courtesy of the BASTARDS.
If the company wants to use such systems for collaboration, fine. Who am I to tell them how misguided they are? But the company account will be for company business only.
Have gnu, will travel.
Jesus christ, man. Get over it.
Obviously scripted and posted with some form of slashdot sentinel. Look at the time stamps for both posting of the story and first comment. Other stories are riddled with the same behavior.
I've told ya once, if you would look at my comment history you would see that i'm Australian.
Judging by the fact you've included me in your list of 'Known puppet accounts' i highly doubt the credibilty of the rest of your list.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
I'd tell them that I have no interest in so-called "social networking" nonsense, and that I'm not going to waste my time with it -- which is the truth, and they can go search all those sites all they want, and they won't find any accounts of mine on any of them, and it's going to stay that way.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I would not.
"Companies can get a lot of mileage out of social networking services from the likes of Google or Facebook."
I'd RTFA if there was an article, but the poster's question follows from the assertion that companies can get "a lot of mileage." What on earth does that mean? Seriously, if the benefits are so unclear that they can only be (probably inaccurately) described as "mileage" then the first thing I'd ask is "why are you asking me to do this? WHAT IS THIS FOR?"
And if you actually are in the mileage business, does social networking actually increase mileage?
;-)
... for the job. Seriously, it is like having some pro-life person applying for the position of medical assistance at an abortion clinic.
Since that is your dumb reasoning, then the job is not good for you and the employer will not be able to violate any laws by letting you go.
I've told ya once, if you would look at my comment history you would see that i'm Australian.
Judging by the fact you've included me in your list of 'Known puppet accounts' i highly doubt the credibilty of the rest of your list.
Unless you are a puppet without knowing it. Ever seen the Manchurian Candidate?
lucm, indeed.
questions like this is why people hate America and it's 1st-world "problems"
or a cylon!
"Unless you are a puppet without knowing it. Ever seen the Manchurian Candidate?"
Only on TV. He's protected by the Secret Service.
If the pay is right, this isn't an issue.
Not a subject like would you work for a company the only offers a 401k not protected by the pension guarantee and not a real pension.
Think America is screwed now just you wait till you see how this decimates America.
You think this was a good plan to make the old work longer but your going to find out they are old and wont be able to.
Hell I cant even afford cat food now just you wait.
No matter what anyone says to the contrary they are just blowing smoke up your ass.
Would your employer be allowed to give out your name/birthdate/address/etc/etc to a 3rd party like a marketing company? (I'm not talking about a court order or subpeona). If the answer is "no", then they should not be able to make you do so. If they want "an internet presence", they can damn well get a corporate account (Fanpage) on Facebook.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
An enterprise version modeled after Facebook already exists as Socialcast (http://www.socialcast.com/). I find that the interface is very much like the older version of Facebook (before changes to the wall, timeline, etc.). It stays on the local intranet of the company, as far as I can tell, although they seem to also have a way to link contacts externally as well.
What's the difference between creating a work account with facebook, and creating a work account for webex?
You just put the minimun info necessary to register, and don't need to share anything, or use it outside work, so there's no tracking that can be done really (just your working hours, but any other web-based third-party too use your can have the same privacy issue).
I think it's hilarious you got modded troll for this post. Just goes to show that they seem to be up to the same tactics they're claiming of other people.
I was once told that 2 out of every 1 people working at the BBC has a multiple personality disorder
da da da dum indeed.
Google and the "social networks" and any employer that tries to force them on me can all go to hell.
If said employer wants one, they can set up a "company" account using realistic-but-fake personal details and legit company info.. that way no individual is tied to the account, no personal posts/pictures get posted, and it can stay with the company even after staff changes.
Hi,
I just want to let you know that you'll probably get modded -1 flamebait, troll or off-topic for these types of posts.
That has nothing to do with your annoying posts or the fact that they are completely offtopic.
It's because most of us are actually puppet accounts by this guy you're bitching about and negative moderations only proof you are right.
You're not paranoid, we (by which I mean all the puppet accounts, which are really just one person) ARE out to get you.
Thank you for your time.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I always wondered where Anonymous Coward works.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Ah, yes, but you would say that if you were a sock puppet wouldn't you. I bet you weigh the same as a duck too...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You say? It will go on your PERMANENT RECORD!!!
I still like to imagine that no sensible European employer would force me to do so. If it happened, I would quit. Immediately. For fear of being associated with the ridiculous, the mundane and the modern FB-proletariat.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
So what is the penalty for flat-out lying to them?
A permanent ban should your lie be discovered, perhaps. Your accounts will get blocked, and should you try to create a new one, the provider might press charges of theft of service.
That was probably back in the same era when you walked uphill both ways, in six feet of snow and across broken glass to school. Right?
I've only got one birthday left between me and fifty - and I've been practicing information compartmentalization practically all my life. Even as a pre-teen I was up to things (like heaving rocks through the windows of an empty house) that I didn't want my parents to know about. On the flip side, I didn't want my friends to know that I played with Barbie dolls with my sister. Etc... etc...
Not to mention things that society found objectionable while I was growing up... Being gay, or dating someone not of your race, or religion, or that you weren't married to for example. You sure as hell compartmentalized those.
Just because we didn't have a term for it doesn't mean we didn't practice it.
Start playing Farmville/Cityville or one of the other ridiculous games and send out requests all the time on that account.
I can't believe I am saying this, as I think FB is evil, but I don't see what the problem is as long as the organization doesn't want you on their social network after hours, on your own time.
It is going to be for the job, work related, so anything you post about is going to be about work........not your personal life. Just make a separate account.
I have several friends who work for non-profits that require them to have Facebook accounts. Each friend has a separate account for their personal lives. Nobody would find anything aside from informational postings about what their org is doing on their work accounts.
My employer has an electronic communications policy that forbids employee's from participating in the company's social networking sites unless it is their job to do so. We can't "like" their posts, or respond to tweets etc. I work in the financial industry, and the company is very protective of their credibility. We do have an internal social networking site to promote collaboration.
I think any company that tries to "stuff the ballot box" by making employees sign up for accounts is barking up the wrong tree. They'll have an active looking social networking presence, but it won't yield the benefits that having a real community of clients will.
You can force a horse to water but he might prefer a cold glass of Pepsi; therefore I would join but do it in such a way as to make it a worthless effort on their part. If they have to police everyone to get them to make it useful then it is very expensive. But that is the rebel in me talking... I don't know how the corporate me would respond.
Force me to sign up for a social network? Sure thing. That's way less invasive of my privacy than asking me to pee in a cup.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
I have a stalker situation and any company that couldn't respect that would be immediately "fired".
Personally I am not on facebook or any social networking site; I would refuse to join any social networking site even if the company demanded it. It just goes to show that any company who requires you to do such a thing is "lower than a snakes belly" and quite frankly wants more PR, will most likely sends out spam email and treats employees like shit!
All cows eat grass!
I don't even have an account here on /.
When would they be expecting you to post on it? During or after work hours?
I work at a major corporation, and we have an internal social network that we might actually sell as a product (it's a big corporation!). It is nowhere near as polished as Facebook or Google+, and I simply don't use it. Our marketing and sales people do, but I'm not one of them. Thy start to force you to use it for entering in paid-time-off and holidays and stuff, and it's the only reason I use it.
If it were something hosted outside the company, I'd definitely be concerned about what is written.
1936 Nazi Germany was A LOT like 1939 Nazi Germany
yah that would go over quite well unless something in your contract/employee handbook could be used.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Swiggle D. Leggboan. Go ahead, look me up. I don't know the direct-to-profile link, sorry no clickie-poppie.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
No.
"Would you work for a company that forced its employees to join a social network?"
Of course not.
It's really sad how (based on responses to this story) there are apparently lots of slashdot posters out there who are so desperate for a master to pull their chains, and toss them a cookie every now and again, they will sign or do anything to get a job. We live in a society full of slaves.
Heh. I'm a supposed sockpuppet, too. Is this Bonch? I guess I'm on his enemies list.
nope, my guardian told me that was some sot of propoganda movie made by those commies. i aint gonna watch no commie movie.
i think it's hilarious that i got added to the list of known 'puppets'
oh how i've wished for a hand up my ass...wait i didn't really say that did i...WHERE'S THE CTRL-Z BUTTON FOR REAL LIFE?
captcha: rampage ... wait that only makes it worse doesn't it.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
well yes, thank-you. i have been working out.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
I wouldn't mind joining a social network with my work email, and posting work-related stuff. I WOULD object to joining with my personal account with all the non-work stuff and wondering if I unfriended/deleted that old HS guy that posted racist stuff before the boss saw it.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The real question is; "Can they make you agree to the EULA?"
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Yes, it's bonch.
http://thinkgeek.shill.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2594904&cid=38520732
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2622364&cid=38709534
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2625760&cid=38732210
They force you to do it. Then there are the ones who thrive on it like Chambers. Remember- they guy who 100% botched the mobile Flash announcement?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes