Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

People don't post pictures of themselves at work.It was an example. There are tons of pictures that people post and comments/status they can make that can have direct relationships to jobs. Perfect for law enforcement, jk.Lol.If they can't figure it out in an interview they suck at their job as hiring manager.It's not that they cannot figure it out. But as a hiring manager, it is their job to use all the resources they have to make sure the person is the right fit for their job. Internet personas are in the public sphere, so they are not doing anything illegal to get the information. Jobs are always evolving, and why wouldn't hiring managers take advantage of all the resources they have at their disposal?You aren't allowed to slack off in your free time? If you do a really good job it doesn't matter if you are abusive to people outside work. If you aren't actually getting in trouble for the stuff that can be seen in your photos how badly did you really break the law?Slacking off was a bad example. But you made the argument that who a person is in their free time has no influence on who they are in the workplace. Employers often want to create communities, and ideally bonds that can extend outside of the workplace. As such, how does it make sense to bring someone in who you know engages in harmful behavior?They are looking for unprofessional behavior in posts about the times you aren't working. You may not realize it, but that is what you were saying.That is not a guarantee. College admissions officers who do the same thing are not simply searching for unprofessional behavior, they want to learn more about who the applicant is as a person, not just on paper. The same is true for employers. Just because unprofessional things can cause problems, doesn't mean it's the only thing that's wrong.And yes, lets say they are looking for things like that. If something exists that could be a legitimate reason to not hire someone and the information regarding whether or not they have done that exists in the public sphere, why can't employers view that?So, that is what complete denial sounds like. No one will ever be hired because they can improve the work environment based on what is seen through facebook.I did not say that, at all. The central point of the note you pulled was that social media and who the person is on the internet is only one data point, and probably a small one. But it still is one, and is representative in part of who this person is to their friends, family, and how they behave. That's exactly why they won't know it. People react stupidly all the time.As I said, things like this are only one data point, and employers do tend to be a bit more forgiving than you think. If everyone is posting stupid things, then employers can't overreact to everyone, because then no one would get hired. They are people They have the ability to understand. And if that is universally true, then the solution is to be more cautious about what you put into the public sphere. Employers are aware the privacy is important, and they are aware that you can control what you put out to the world. By posting something that could get you fired/not hired to a public space and then to get upset when people view it is immensely hypocritical. I said:and they understand that people aren't always profession in their spare time.I disagree.Ok, why? This one I think needs some backup, because you just made a claim that every single employer things that every single employee needs to be professional 100% of the time. I am saying they shouldn't do it. If the company doesn't pay you enough to judge your personal life then they shouldn't do it. Standard jobs don't pay near enough to get that kind of judgement.That still doesn't quite answer why internet persona's should be off-limits. By that logic, are you against interviews at all? Should people be hired solely based on merit?And even if they don't pay enough, say they have 2 candidates. Both have the same credentials, and one is a person who is generally responsible, nice, and would be a nice addition to the workplace, and the other is not. Who do you pick? Is it wrong to use those factors at all?