It seems as though nobody in this thread actually read the article. They are not revealing user names on the site. The objection here is having the real name as part of your private profile data, in case of a future data breach. It’s a real concern, but orders of magnitude less serious than what everybody is assuming.
Shame on Ars for the misleading clickbait headline.
If this is the same one I read yesterday, wasn’t it also attaching false information in some cases and changing information (to false information) without letting the users know? That’s fucked up.
Not to mention attaching real names to profiles that were created with the assurance of anonymity.
Act fast: For a limited time, only $99/year to keep yourself anonymous and out of the crosshairs of disgruntled ex-employers. Then prices shoot up to whatever the fuck we want, because we know you’ll pay!
The purpose of the site is for employees to rate their employers anonymously, to alert fellow workers to poor conditions. For the site to reveal names means employers can now use glassdoor to know which employees say bad things about them, and can retaliate. It’s a major dick move.
Did you read the article? That isn’t what’s happening. I can understand your confusion because of the provocative and misleading article title, but they’re adding names to your private profile.
And did you bother reading the other comments? You wrote this one 18 hours ago, and 22 hours ago, just below I wrote “… so I couldn’t be arsed to read the article before getting up.”
I’m going to assume you didn’t. Here’s a link so you can get caught up.
I mean, to be fair, if it’s a private profile, then theoretically the only ones (besides the company of course) that would see it would be the user. But the user already knows their own name, obviously. Which means this wouldn’t be as private a thing as it used to be, because why would the company spend time, personnel, and money developing a new aspect of the software for the site just to provide info that they and the user already would know.
Unless of course there’s something I’m still misunderstanding. Which, mind you, is definitely a possibility knowing me. Please correct me if it is indeed the case.
Yeah they’ve absolutely made a change, and there are legitimate concerns about them having the data, and their vulnerability to a hack that might leak it for example.
I’m only trying to correct the idea that everybody’s public reviews now have their name attached to it.
But they will add your name to your profile without your consent, and then in the future they could easily share your identity and there would be nothing you could do about it.
Particularly for employees who fear retaliation for reviews, Mackey said that Glassdoor users could historically choose never to share their real names, and the company now storing names for all users makes it much more likely that users could be linked to their reviews should Glassdoor’s data ever be subpoenaed or leaked. That’s what had Monica so concerned, too.
It’s a valid concern. The whole premise of the site kind of demands anonymity.
Not disputing that it’s a concern at all, and the way they went about it is super shady. It’s just that the implication in the headline is so so much worse than that.
They’re de-anonymizing all accounts so I hope you’re okay with your reviews having your real name. Whether you have Glassdoor your name or not - Fishbowl using data lists to fill your data regardless of your consent.
Seems like you didn’t read the article either. That isn’t what’s happening. I can understand your confusion because of the provocative and misleading article title, but they’re adding names to your private profile, not adding them to your reviews.
I mean, they were a data gathering company from day 1. This is just the nail in the coffin on them unable to sustain a business model that was basically “let companies pay to write reviews to counteract actual reviews”
Add comment