I still don't like it...
Submitted by softwarejanitor on Mon, 04/14/2008 - 11:00am.
::
But I suppose it does represent a little "balance"...
John McCain is now the featured question on LinkedIn. Previously they featured a question by Barak Obama. Not sure if/when they will do one for Hillary Clinton. FWIW, I was critical of LI for promoting Obama when his question ran, and I'm still not completely happy with politicization of networking.
They've also featured Bill Gates -- not surprising given the amount of advertising that MS does on LinkedIn.
- softwarejanitor's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I agree I do not really like seeing it up there. However it does not surprise me. With the massive amount of people on Linked in, you have a potential huge influence base. Now take the idea that Linkedin in is a professional social site and you have a large voting base potentially as well.
I think they are walking a fine line. Are they trying to that since this is a professional networking site, that the politicians are "networking"? Seems out of place to me. Plus I can not stand any of the candidates.
I know what you mean about the candidates. I think a lot of us feel that way. If "none of the above" was on the ballot I think that'd be the overwhelming winner. Disqualify those people, make the parties start over with a new set of candidates until we get someone that a majority of people can at least stomach...
Could not agree more. It seems every new election year the candidates get worse and worse.
I, and I'm sure a lot of other people have a lot of theories as to why that is...
Seems very strange to me that you both feel this way. At least in the Democratic party, it seems that people feel they have two very strong candidates - voter turnout seems to show that. I don't think I ever even voted in a presidential primary in Texas, because the 'presumptive nominee' has usually been decided before it ever comes to a vote here!
That said, I think that no matter who was picked, there is so much diversity of opinion in the country that we could never come up with a set of candidates that a majority of people can at least stomach.
My problem is I really do not consider myself a Democrat or Republican. In the past I have voted which side I felt has the best candidate for the job.
As far as the Democrats having strong candidates, I am in the minority it seems on that. I see self loathing characters.
However to be honest I really do not see any of the 3 being a step down from our current situation. Just my opinion!
I'm not really either a Republican or Democrat either. My political philosophy most closely follows the Libertarian party, although I disagree with them on a few issues, primarily public funding of education. I agree with some issues on either "side" of the two party system, and in a few cases I disagree with where both parties stand on certain issues, such as the "war on drugs" (both parties have consistently supported continuing it, and I think it is a waste of time and money), abortion (I'm pro-abortion which is not to be confused with pro-choice). Ultimately my voting choices almost always come down to one issue which is the most important to me, and because of that I mostly end up having to vote for Republican candidates.
I'm not sure which of Hillary or Obama I would least like to see elected. I don't particularly like McCain either, but I consider him a lesser evil than either of those two.
I think that it would be possible to find a candidate that a majority could at least tolerate if both parties weren't so thoroughly controlled by people who are so polarized that they feel compelled to mindlessly hate anyone who isn't part of their party.
There were candidates on both sides that I didn't completely despise, but because they didn't appeal the strongest to the extremist elements of their respective parties they didn't stand much of a chance at getting the nomination.
Its the two party system and the way the parties have tried to build a divide between themselves that is the problem, and I think that is why so many people in the middle feel disenfranchised.
In response to your last sentence, I'm not sure there's a majority of Americans who truly care, much less can stomach anyone. Of course people "care", but are quick to get behind someone who promises to care on your behalf, and implement a plan to fix it. What's the plan? It's the one that sounds the best to the majority of voters that "care".
In my opinion, the majority want someone who is likable, with lofty words, charisma, charm, wit, and who appears smarter than them -- almost all the qualities in a date (except perhaps the last attribute). Thinking too hard makes their brain hurt, so the candidate that feels right must be the best. It's all about who says all the right things, with all the right buzzwords, promising to help "you" / the victim while sticking it to "them", and whoever doesn't commit the most screw-ups during the campaign (which may be what Hillary is holding out for).
Alternately, a minority of people really contemplate the problems we're facing. Problem is, considering a majority of people carry all the votes AND just care about feelings and buzzwords, how does a candidate not pander to them to get elected?
Boy, why is this reminiscent of our recent job market discussions, especially re: the use of buzzwords?
Yeah, its kind of scary sometimes how many things end up boiling down to the same arguments about different topics.
"Boy, why is this reminiscent of our recent job market discussions, especially re: the use of buzzwords?"
So very true. It seems the mindset is ingrained (sp?) in the majority of our population.
Honestly, I think it's part of human nature. We abstract reality, but sometimes forget that abstractions imply a loss of information for the sake of simplicity. We do this all the time: We walk about, noticing a table, car, building, and so on - we don't care about what they are made of, how old they are, etc.; that's too much information for us to process and retain. So we abstract them into simple types of objects which we can deal with.
The hiring example: A manager at a certain company is responsible for hiring a new engineer. If he receives 5 resumes, then each resume can be afforded a detailed review, with background checks, and digging into the details of work history. However, if the person receives 500 resumes, he must find some way to filter them to avoid the time/effort cost of digging through each one. So buzzwords are abstractions to represent a degree of knowledge. I.e., "The candidate needs to know Java, so remove all resumes from the pile without that word." The assumption is that anyone who doesn't have those four consecutive letters on their resume cannot pass as a qualified candidate. Is that really true? It's not hard to think up counter-examples: What if a candidate is a C++ master, a language that is arguably more difficult to use than Java? That information is not captured in the abstraction, and his resume is discarded. Nor is the information that he's a very quick learner.
What I see as the problem is when abstractions are misunderstood as the summation of relevant information, instead of a simplification.
So the discarded candidate calls up and asks the hiring manager about why he was not selected. The hiring manager may say "because you don't know Java", and now the hiring manager is on the brink of assuming the person isn't qualified because he doesn't fit the simplification mold. This is the potential pitfall: If the hiring manager sticks to his guns and assumes that the buzzword "Java" is the summation of what he needs to know, then the phone hangs up. If the hiring manager realizes that it's a mere simplification, then perhaps the discarded candidate can make his case and get the interview.
Wow...I didn't mean to go on that long. But in my mind, not knowing when to stop using buzzword abstractions is the root of the problem.
I pretty much agree with that... Unfortunately I don't have a good way to get out of the problem other than to address the supply side of the problem. As long as recruiters and hiring managers have to deal with hundreds of resumes for every posting they aren't going to be able to give critical examination to them. We need at least several more years of the current 70+% reduced enrollments in CS related degree programs plus an end to H1B and L1 visa programs so that the market is able to reabsorb the current gluts. That's just for starters.
Critical examination is one aspect - I agree. However, it's hard to blame them if they're receiving a ton of resumes. That is the supply side problem, as you said.
However, the buzzword problem is when the resume reviewer doesn't understand the simplification. Per the job requirements, what does "needs to know Java" really mean? If the recruiter doesn't have the technical background to realize someone with excellent C++ expertise may be a good candidate for a Java position, that's a disservice to both the company and the applicant.
So is this where great recruiters distinguish themselves from the rest: technical background knowledge in the job to be recruited? If so, hopefully they're not using simple buzzwords to weed out candidates.
Great recruiters won't, but I think they, like great technical people are the exception rather than the rule. The reality is that most are in the middle somewhere, just like the majority of other people. And that means that probably at least a lot of the time buzzword filtering is a reality we have to deal with.
The other part of the problem is that "Java" isn't enough... you've got to have J2EE plus several 3rd party technologies... at least one app server (JBoss, WebSphere or Weblogic), frameworks like Spring, Struts, Hybernate, etc., and other related stuff like JUnit, Ant, etc.
Even if you get past the recruiter hurdle then you have to deal with the hiring manager... and if you are aren't 110% buzzword match then the recruiter has to sell them in order for you to get to the next level.
Yeah, as I've mentioned before (as did Clint at the very top), LinkedIn is indeed walking a fine line by promoting one member above everyone else just because of his position outside of the social network. Granted it seems like most LinkedIn members don't care one way or the other. But some of us do.
I don't think McCain or Obama are even legitimate members of the community. I might be wrong, but other than the staged "events" I would doubt that their campaign staffers even use the site much.
I think you're right. I'm willing to bet those profiles were not filled out personally by the candidates.
As to the original comments...
If the space that was supplied to McCain and Obama was free, Linked In is legally required to provide the same option to Clinton.
If it was a "paid" advertisement, they are not required to provide free time to Senator Clinton.
Bottom line - free media must be accompanied by equal time. All bets are off on paid advertisements.
Really - legally required? This isn't "fairness doctrine" stuff, is it? Or does this fall under campaign laws?
So if (heaven forbid) I allow some campaigning politician to speak at my next door64 happy hour for free, then I am legally obligated to also allow his opponents the same opportunity?
BYW, the candidates do not fill out their own paperwork. That job belongs to their communications staff.
No, you are not required to have them all speak at a door 64 meeting. The Republican Party isn't required to give a Democrat the opportunity to speak at their next meeting either.
This falls under Media Law as it pertains to broadcasters. Radio, television, etc.
Any of us can freely promote any candidate that we want. But when it come to unpaid radio and television shows, candidates must be provided with an "equal opportunity".
Also, the candidate isn't required to accept the free media. it is their choice as to whether or not they take the opportunity.
Have there been any clear rulings as to whether web sites that don't have a print or broadcast format fall under the same media law? At very least right now I doubt that there is much enforcement of those rules towards "new media". It would probably also be hard to enforce those rules against web sites that are run from or hosted offshore.
If they aren't the "Media", then it doesn't really matter who they promote. (unless it violates the Patriot Act:)
If we are talking about "Fox News" or "ABC's" website; equal time must be provided to Federal candidates. That means that if Fox News provides McCain "free" space for his campaign materials, they need to offer that same space to Clinton and Obama. The objective is to be fair about the availability of free media.
That being said, this ruling does not apply to media coverage of the candidates. If a candidate falls off a stage at a campaign rally, and the media shows it nonstop--that does not qualify!
Here's info and a link from the Federal Communications Commission
http://www.fcc.gov
The FCC is engaged in content regulation
Section 326!
The FCC doesn't have employees monitoring broadcasts, they wait for the public to complain about content
"punishment after the fact" rather than censorship the FCC won't tell you what you can't say (that would be censorship) but they will fine a person or institution if they say something that violates a content regulation
Here's the actual ruling:
3. Political programming
a. candidate access rule
applies to legally qualified candidates for federal office (though most stations apply it to state offices as matter of policy)
Section 312 (a) (7) says that stations must give "reasonable good faith attention to access requests"
there is no right for a candidate to buy time on a station a station can't reject all ads, but can reject unreasonable requests
b. equal opportunity/equal time rule
applies to legally qualified candidates for any elected public office
if a station permits one it has to permit all stations don't have to solicit requests (passive)stations can't censor what candidates air applies to things such as TV entertainment programs, feature films etc.
Thanks for the info about those rules.
Coincidentally, I just heard about some proposed FCC rules that might actually hamper some local radio stations, requiring them to base their programming/content on community input:
http://www.helpradionow.com/
(Admittedly I don't know all the details yet, since I just heard about it today.) I believe this falls under the FCC initiative of "Localism", from what I have read. Sounds good initially, but then why would I want the FCC getting involved with free speech under the guise of community-regulated content? Won't everything become mainstream because the masses are mainstream by definition?
Let me check into that with my radio friends. I'll let you know what they say about the ruling.
Interesting article about news channels' culpability in allowing paid "message force multipliers" to be presented as objective military analysts.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6558164.html