Job seekers may be beseiged by their online past

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Source: http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/12/execunet_jobseekers_onlinepast/

Found this article on computer hardware news/reviews website I often visit. Quote:

Norwalk (CT) - Recruiting and hiring managers are increasingly eliminating job candidates because of negative online information found on social networking sites, blogs and forums. ExecuNet, a job search and recruiting company, polled 100 executive recruiters and found that more than a third of recruiters have eliminated a candidate based on dirt they dug up online.

According to ExecuNet's data, 77% of the recruiters used search engines to find out more information about the candidates, while 35% eliminated a candidate based on online information. You should be aware of what information you put online, as Dave Opton, ExecuNet's CEO and founder, explained: "First impressions are being formed long before the interview process begins," adding that everyone should manage his or her own online image.

In a separate but related study, ExecuNet surveyed executives who were looking for jobs, and found that 82% expected their names to be entered into a search engine. 16% feared that online information could disqualify them from getting the job.

ExecuNet recommends that job seekers avoid posting negative comments on blogs, forums and social networking sites. Job seekers should also search themselves using multiple search engines, on a monthly basis to find out what online dirt has been written about them.

The emphasis is mine. There seems to be 2 ways to interpret the potential intention of this article - but both directions lead to the same conclusion: It is designed to protect the pathocracy. The first way to interpret it is that it's a not-so-subtle way to get people to stop being critical and voicing their opinions even on the internet - the one last medium people still have to dissent and reach a sizable audience. In other words - "say only nice, positive, and happy things or else." Reminds me of why many people do not speak out against the real terror of the situation even if they do see it. They dont' want to lose their jobs, among other things. The second way to interpret the meaning/reason of this article as I understand it is that some people can be in fact psychopaths themselves and so their future employer may have a chance to find that out by reading their psychopathic/manipulative posts on the internet. But if THAT is the case, then it ALSO works to protect psychopaths because it simply tells them "Look, if you're a psychopath, be careful and hide your true nature and don't forget the internet as well!".

So to summarize, the article is either promoting psychopaths and true deviants to hide their true nature, or it is telling good people to not voice honest but negative opinions. Either way it works to strengthen the pathocracy, to increase the stealth and deceptiveness of psychopaths, and to stifle honest dissent and criticizm of pretty much anything, most especially the "system" which includes the government, the corporate world, society, and everything else that has been pathocratically infested and thus is objectively NEGATIVE! But the article seems to be saying that, even though you may be describing a truely objectively "negative" reality, it is YOU who will be deemed negative for even bringing it up and having a negative opinion, not the reality you're describing. Reminds me of "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" nonsense. What a deviant distortion/deception this is.

Well, for what its worth, those who are brave enough I'd encourage to take this article as even more reason to continue to dissent and express your opinions. Those who feel intimidated by this may take comfort in the fact that the internet also offers some amount of anonymity, at least allowing the use of aliases (like the one I'm using on this forum) that are effective against any future employer snooping. I know that I'm not anonymous from the governments and my ISP and many other agencies, but I'm anonymous enough from the casual google search of my real name, which helps.

P.S. - As an example, consider what this would mean for the likes of Laura, Ark, and SOTT team. Not only do they report on a lot of extremely negative things about our burning planet every day and in great detail, but they are constantly attacked and defamed and lied about all over many public forums and so on and so forth. If they're to take advice of this article, they must cease all their online activities and try to make amends with all the psychopaths to make them "happy" so they say nice things and encourage future employers to hire Laura and Ark. Right..

 

[John Chang]

Two words: Plausible Deniability. Don't let your real name be directly associated with your blog, if you're working for the Man.

Of course, the real solution is to stop working for the Man, but that's a different issue altogether.

 

[Tigersoap]

Thanks for the article.

I suppose that people should use common sense when posting things on the internet.
No name, no personal datas and so on.

It's quite difficult to protect your personal infos when you are using the internet to promote yourself and/or your business.
Associating yourself with alternative info sites might pose a problem indeed.

Consider all the websites such as myspace or dating services for example.
These are massive data gathering tools where you're inclined to divulge a lot of your personal informations.

 

[karam8]

I'm proud to say that my name is not listed in google in anyway! This is a big accomplishment since I have been using the internet for 10 years.

Consider all the websites such as myspace or dating services for example.
These are massive data gathering tools where you're inclined to divulge a lot of your personal informations.

Wow. So true. I've never looked at those websites like that ever before. Great comment.

 

[Johnno]

I'm proud to say that my name is not listed in google in anyway! This is a big accomplishment since I have been using the internet for 10 years.

Consider all the websites such as myspace or dating services for example.
These are massive data gathering tools where you're inclined to divulge a lot of your personal informations.

Wow. So true. I've never looked at those websites like that ever before. Great comment.

Mine has, but I share it with a minor celebrity! So it gets lost.