[HN Gopher] Employer Review Site Glassdoor Deanonymized Users Wi...
___________________________________________________________________
Employer Review Site Glassdoor Deanonymized Users Without Consent
Author : stanislavb
Score : 179 points
Date : 2024-03-21 23:46 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (restoreprivacy.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (restoreprivacy.com)
| blowsand wrote:
| That's super shady, and Glassdoor has lost its usefulness to me,
| so this easily nudged me to delete my account. Straightforward
| process can be started at the bottom of this page:
| https://help.glassdoor.com/s/privacyrequest
| janalsncm wrote:
| Note that according to the article you also have to
| specifically request your data be deleted. You can do that
| here:
|
| https://help.glassdoor.com/s/privacyrequest?language=en_US
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| This isn't just evil, it's stupid. I can't imagine a worse policy
| for the long-term success of that site. Like, I just don't see
| any upside -- what usage boost are they going to get from putting
| real names on there?
| blowsand wrote:
| Perhaps they are trying to reconstitute into something more
| like LinkedIn. Whatever the case, shady. Deleted my 15+ year
| old account and data. I always knew the reviews were garbage
| given that across 3 companies I've worked for there were
| concerted efforts to get employees to post positive reviews. We
| always knew "Glassdoor season" was coming when there were more
| "fun" events and all-hands and messages about "winning" the
| best places to work nonsense.
| jeffwask wrote:
| They have been majoring in stupid for a while now.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| do you understand the location of their physical offices? and
| the amounts of money paid to Cxx at Glassdoor, today ?
|
| they obviously do not care what you think of them, and have no
| intention of changing their course.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| I do not have that information. How do they make their money?
| theshackleford wrote:
| My decision not to engage with the platform is vindicated. Yay!
| jquery wrote:
| Congrats, invite me to the party please.
| ta8645 wrote:
| I decided to not even know they existed until this submission.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Companies understand only one language: lawyers. Though
| expensive, it is very effective.
| bbarnett wrote:
| I agree but tend to think of it as "money". People apologise
| with words and actions.
|
| Companies can only apologise with money.
|
| I have actually tried an alternative approach, negotiating that
| "OK, don't pay damages, instead change behaviour but with
| reporting, and 10x damages if you reneg".
|
| In every case, companies vastly want to just pay, because?
| Well, because they plan to re-offend.
| naniwaduni wrote:
| People apologize with actions. Companies apologize with
| actions.
|
| Companies act, for the most part, with money. (Not all
| actions are apologies.)
| bbarnett wrote:
| You can't do anything without action. I don't see the
| counter(or supporting?) point you're trying to make.
|
| My point is, a company isn't a person. It feels no
| humility, or compassion, or empathy. Individual parts of a
| company _may_ , but most certainly not the whole, as a
| single entity.
|
| Thus, for the organism to feel pain, it must have resources
| taken from it. If it is a "bad" company, it must be starved
| to death!
| thayne wrote:
| If they plan to re-offend, it isn't an apology.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Indeed. Yet our legal system won't force much beyond cash,
| at least for many things, if the company isn't willing to
| take an alternate route.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| this is not absolute -- BUT there is an abundance of
| clever and experienced attorneys who can and will find a
| way out for the side that has money to pay. There are
| serious consequences for a multitude of serious
| situations, but that is not news. Over time, corporate
| interests bend the intent of strong laws with repeated
| paths to escape the harsh results defined in many laws in
| the USA, IMHO.
| toast0 wrote:
| > In every case, companies vastly want to just pay, because?
| Well, because they plan to re-offend.
|
| That's one possible reason. Other reasons are a one time
| payment extinguishes the conflict, whereas a reporting
| arrangement prolongs the conflict. There's likely to be
| disagreements over reporting and such.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _Companies can only apologise with money._
|
| A fine is a price.
| neilv wrote:
| Blind was running a promoted/ad about this on LinkedIn today.
|
| What would be good for the industry would be to see Glassdoor
| totally wiped out over this. It can't be via reputation alone,
| since Yelp is still around. But it could be via lawsuits.
| zem wrote:
| that would be amazingly good for the industry. not holding my
| breath, though; I can't think of a precedent even though lots
| of other companies have done shady stuff
| lulznews wrote:
| Mega massive class action in 3 ... 2 ...
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39705788
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39761176
| mkl95 wrote:
| Glassdoor has the worst UX to popularity ratio I've ever seen.
| Only X and Jira come close.
| npteljes wrote:
| What both have is something unique, so people still go there.
| Yeah Jira is the worst, except for the rest of the similar
| software. And on Glassdoor, I can check out how much people say
| they are paid at my company. I have literally no idea about it
| otherwise.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| Those salary estimates are garbage.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _I have literally no idea about it otherwise._
|
| You can ask your coworkers.
| lucumo wrote:
| Looking quickly at the site, I don't see de-anonymized users. I
| don't see any user profiles at all. Just job titles.
|
| Has anybody been able to independently verify this?
| bolobo wrote:
| It's not about displaying the names next to the reviews on
| GLassdoor.
|
| It's about building an internal database of user profiles with
| their names. And they are apparently pretty aggressive, getting
| the names from support cases and third parties:
|
| https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/about/terms/ > "We may update your
| Profile with information we obtain from third parties. We may
| also use personal data you provide to us via your resume(s) or
| our other services."
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/glassdoor-adding...
|
| The worry is that when they get hacked, it will be possible to
| map real humans to reviews. Which is potentially going to be
| catastrophic for anyone who posted negative reviews. Not a good
| move from a website which is some sort
| gorbachev wrote:
| Hacking is not the most likely negative scenario. Your data
| is already in multiple hacked databases, anyway. You've
| already lost that fight. Even if Glassdoor gets hacked, the
| information they already have on you (email, place of
| employment) is enough to deanonymize you when combined with
| other hacked databases.
|
| The most likely negative scenario is that it'll now be much
| easier for companies to uncover identities of people posting
| reviews about them on Glassdoor. HR inviting you for a "chat"
| due to a negative interview is what I'd be concerned about.
| As another commenter said already, this is phenomenally
| stupid from Glassdoor, because they're losing the remaining
| little trust people had on them for keeping their users
| anonymous.
| mulmen wrote:
| When I logged in on mobile web Glassdoor forced me into a signup
| flow for something called Communities which included asking for
| my employment status. I was able to time a stop before the full
| page load and navigate to the account page.
|
| If you log in first you can navigate directly to this URL without
| answering any questions:
| https://www.glassdoor.com/member/profile/accountSettings which
| will allow you to close your account.
|
| You then need to request they delete your data which can be done
| at https://help.glassdoor.com/s/privacyrequest?language=en_US
| someone7x wrote:
| Thanks for the easy steps, they say my data should be removed
| in 30 days.
| osigurdson wrote:
| The probably know their time is coming to an end and are now
| attempting to sell any information they deem valuable. I can
| imagine some bosses would love to know who posted the scathing
| reviews while still working for the company and would be willing
| to pay.
| osigurdson wrote:
| ... and, to be fair, posting a scathing review while continuing
| to work at a company is a little weak in my view.
| lebean wrote:
| Think of it as a performance review, but with reversed roles.
| vlod wrote:
| You know, the tech job market is pretty bad at the moment.
| They might even have families where they are the sole
| breadwinner.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Why?
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| Glassdoor, despite what disgruntled employees may desire, is not
| a platform to post defamatory reviews without fear of reprisal.
| If a person posts something that fails the libel test (I.e. not
| opinion but easily demonstrated as to be factually false),
| Glassdoor can be legally compelled and will deanonymize the
| person. Be mindful to keep your facts fact and opinions opinion.
| fl7305 wrote:
| > something that fails the libel test
|
| And that is the US libel laws.
|
| In Sweden for instance, the truth won't shield you from being
| convicted for libel.
| crtasm wrote:
| This story has been posted many times over the past few days.
| Please check before adding a dupe thread.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-22 23:02 UTC)