A recently published article on Gizmodo discusses the idea behind the platforms that social media sites like Facebook and Twitter create for millions of users. A space for free discussion and constructive criticism.

A new report from Pew Research investigated why many people remain silent on social media platforms, even silent with family and friends, and they found that many people don’t think their views are widely shared. Instead, rather unique and most users both online and offline rather not argue their points and try to prove why they are right. The research also found that people were less likely to share their opinions online rather than in person with other people who also shared their opinions on a particular topic.

Another interesting finding that this article presents is that Facebook and Twitter is powered by algorithms that are designed to “feed us news that aligns with what we want to see and hear”. Do you find yourself often intrigued by posts you see on your Facebook news feed? Or notice that you usually see posts that your Facebook friends are posting that you would also be interested in?

Whether it’s for us to click on, read, or share, many videos and articles are easily visible on social media platforms as that is what most people spend their time reading on Facebook. What was opinion based content, such as posting statuses, is now including content from third-person parties.

Do you find yourself agreeing with the news or articles you read on Facebook? Or even more interesting, do you find yourself agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions and comments of others in regards to the issues and topics being discussed? Are you more willing to share your thoughts on social media vs. face-to-face discussions?

Source: http://gizmodo.com/social-media-users-are-unikely-to-disagree-with-consens-1627342507

Almost on Facebook is now aware of the “Report for Abuse” button for when you see something disturbing posted. From naked pictures to inappropriate content, the button allows users to alert Facebook employees that there is something on Facebook that shouldn’t be seen. Who takes care of this? I think many of us just assume that a Facebook employee or team is in charge of deleting inappropriate content. “Pretty much any social media site you can think of uses some sort of moderation to keep abusive content off its page.”

What’s interesting is that many people don’t know how disturbing content on the internet can get. Most people think of videos that involve violence or nudity, but there’s everything from child pornography, beheading’s and brutal violence that is posted on social media sites. This sort of content takes a toll on content-moderating workers – of whom there are an estimated 100,000 worldwide.

In the November issue of Wired, Adrian Chen offers a peek into one of the darkest aspects to the social media industry. A scary fact is that the average length of employment for content moderators is between three and six months. Most of them don’t even work for that long, and end up quitting much sooner.

There is a lot of negative content online and for an estimated 100,00 moderators worldwide, you would think most of the content would be strictly regulated. However, one of the best things of the web is the freedom to post whatever you want under whatever account you like. That causes some positive and most definitely, some negative aspects, to social media.

Source: http://gizmodo.com/the-horrifying-lives-of-facebook-content-moderators-1649825388

Last week in class we discussed whether or not employers/recruiters should be able to use prospective employees social media accounts. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, a survey indicated that 43% of recruiters who used social media as a part of the screening process found photos or tweets that led them to not hiring the candidate. Wheras 19% of those surveyed said that the social media accounts they looked at actually increased the chances of hiring a particular candidate. They said that they found information that helped them choose the candidate, and it usually was due to communication skills and professional image. For the recruiters who found that social media accounts hurt the chances of potential employees, they agreed it was due to inappropiate photos and information.

During our in-class debate about whether recruiters should use social media, some of the points made by the opposing side was that it was invasive, biased, and inappropiate to use Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts to screen a candidate. Many will argue and say that social media can help with the hiring process because it will help employers understand who fits company culture and whether they have good communication skills. One of the surverys in this article tells us that social media as a screening tool will hurt candidates more likely then helping them. When this discussion first came to light people worried that employers would find negative posts and images of themselves online. However, now that people are more aware of their social media presence, they are more likely to filter their accounts and make sure they are professional. For those who don’t filter their accounts or don’t mind to make their accounts more professional this could be a problem. Despite the fact that there have been increased privacy settings on social media accounts, what you post or upload could hurt your chances of a job if employers are regularly using social media to screen new hires. The article goes on to explain how social media can cause biased views of a candidate, “It could lead to discrimination, they say, and it may screen out otherwise strong candidates who have done some things the company doesn’t like but aren’t related to work.”

There are many factors that companies use to evaluate a candidate, anywhere from communication skills, personality, and technical skills. A candidates personal social media account shouldn’t be one of them.

Citings:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303825604579514471793116740