The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Employers hiring facebook users

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 29240
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I think that people should agree to let the employers get access to their account if they want to get the job. They must follow the policies that the company wants.


Thank you, demyG26, for making this debate, I accept this debate and wish you luck.
I think Pro may have a difficult argument to make with several issues that need to be addressed
  • What if one does not have a Facebook account?
  • What if one has multiple accounts?
  • Why give up privacy?
  • Would you have access to all other employee Facebook like your boss's or the CEO's(a matter of reciprocity)
  • If one's private life s not affecting one's work then why should a company be interested in my personal life.

It seems clear to me that if one gives their employer rights to view their Facebook page that the employer may use this info as they please giving the employee a disadvantage when it come to negotiation and job security. Other than access to a larger pool of jobs, Pro will need to show what advantages his proposal will entail and how they may overcome the disadvantages of working for a big brother-like employer.

Debate Round No. 1


I agree, because what the employers are doing is they are asking dor your permission to get access to your account and its on your own decision now. Also they are doing this process because they dont want employers to realease infrmations that the company is holding, or the informations that contains the company's embarassment.


Facebook TOS
Section 4 line 8 "You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account"

At first I thought you were talking about simply allowing a perspective employer to view ones Facebook page as a friend might, a way to get around privacy settings, but it is clear now given your other debate on this subject you are talking about user lever access. Facebook's TOS prohibits this.

It seems you have confused the fact that human resource departments in an effort to hire quality individuals may try and find out as much as possible about perspective employees and in doing so look one up on Facebook, with perspective employers combing through ones personal life with a fine toothed comb to a level that one would need consent.

While it is important to remember to be selective about what you post online. No company is asking for user level access to personal Facebook accounts.

Pro, you have made several claims and at this point I ask for a creditable source that backs your worries. I also ask that you make a case on why we should comply since this was your original position.

I am a maintenance worker in a factory. Yearly we are required to undergo certification, that we understand what type of information may be harmful to the company, things like trade secrets. It is not a worry about embarrassing information it a worry about competitive advantage. At no time is it require for us to give access to our personal internet activity.
Debate Round No. 2


demyG26 forfeited this round.


Pro has failed to put forth an argument affirming the proposition, and had failed to post in R3. I therefore ask that you vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
Thank you so much, it was an interesting read. The article gave examples where friending in order to preform valid security checks are valid. It would seem such checks should be preformed by a third party so that the viewer would not be influenced by non-relavent data, for example i am an atheist , the most distrusted minority in the country distrusted more than sexual offenders. by being an atheist could cost me a job if the person viewing my face book posts is biased against me from that data. However if the viewer was only looking to answer narrow questions that were actually relevant to the job, then this would not be so bad.

Now of course it was clear a few of those example were gross over reaching.
As i noted in the debate "If one's private life s not affecting one's work then why should a company be interested in my personal life."
the tasks that can be preformed by friending a third party for a single day for valid concerns as in prison guard and gang connections would be a case where one's personal life may be of concern to job preformence. this would be the exception to the statement in the debate.

thank you again Deadlykris for the link.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Oh and by no means do I agree with the practice, I think it's a gross overreach and an invasion of privacy - as well as a violation of the user agreement for Facebook.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
K I found it. It was a Associated Press article. Here's a Yahoo News link to the AP article.
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
I am sure demy could use that link and until provided your words are only hearsay. What you have noted so far is far from providing that anyone should comply. Even if people do comply this is not reason that others should as well.

I hope you can find this link as I would like to read it as well.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
There are, in fact, employers requiring user-level access to an employee's Facebook account, either as a condition of hire or of continued employment. I don't recall where I read this, but it was a reputable source.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to actually provide a valid reason for his assertions, and forfeited the final round. Con had sources.