[slantyyz]

>> You didn't publicize this kind of stuff because the effort of typing it and Xeroxing it for your zine wasn't worth the reward of a reader getting some sort of insight into the company culture.

At least for my cohort, that's not the reason why you didn't do it. You didn't do it because it was career limiting. There was value placed on a person who had a sense of discretion.

I'm sure a lot of HR types Google their candidates. I'm wondering if any would drop a candidate for having posted these things.

[danso]

And this is why it is interesting: the fact that someone is putting their name to something that could seriously damage their future career potential. It is ironic that you dismiss this as self-promotion -- of course it is -- and then point out that it could be career-limiting.

[slantyyz]

It was considered career limiting for my generation. Don't know if it still is now, or if the younger generations simply don't care.

Outside of the "Why I Left" posts, a lot of younger people put a lot of content on social media that my age peer group would consider "career limiting".

[danso]

I think you have to see it in a technological context, as in, what does technology enable people to do that it didn't during your generation? Because it's very likely your generation would be doing the same thing had your younger years experienced the same kind of technological enabling.

Napster and LimeWire were big in my younger years and it allowed kids to illicitly amass music collections beyond what most middle-income kids could in a previous generation. Does that mean my generation were inherently more appreciative of music and/or more unethical, had Internet file-sharing never come to pass?

[slantyyz]

>> Napster and LimeWire were big in my younger years and it allowed kids to illicitly amass music collections beyond what most middle-income kids could in a previous generation. Does that mean my generation were inherently more appreciative of music and/or more unethical, had Internet file-sharing never come to pass?

The only thing that Napster and Limewire did was to allow you to get more faster. You guys were no worse than my generation who shared vinyl and recorded "personal copies" onto cassette tapes.

When I was young, schools used your "permanent record" as a scare tactic. Having a black mark on your school record could prevent you from getting certain jobs (the one example cited by my high school principal was getting into the police academy). This stuff would get laughed at today.

On the other hand, today's version of your "permanent record" (i.e., anything you've said or done online) is broader in scope and for the most part, available to everyone. While it seems like everyone is aware of the potential consequences, it also seems like people are also less concerned about them as well. I'm just amazed at some of the stuff I see on sites that use Facebook comments where everyone is pretty much posting with their real name.

[thesuitonym]

I guess it depends on the nature of why you left. For instance: I would not post such a thing (or at least I would do so anonymously) if I had a very negative experience with a company.

However, if the reason I left was simply one of cultural differences, or some other not-quite-a-fit scenario, I would certainly have no qualms attaching my name to it. Like I said, that's often something you're asked about in an interview anyway.