In the early 20th century, Henry Ford pioneered an idea called "welfare capitalism." He paid his workers twice the normal rate, but required that they live their private lives in a manner approved by the company's "Social Department."  Gambling and drinking were forbidden, and church attendance was mandatory. Companies that use Facebook in the hiring process are subscribing to the same principle as Henry Ford: that businesses have a right to control employees’ private lives.

Facebook began as a place for college students to socialize. It is a place for students to share information with their friends. To spy on that information is to cross the line between personal and professional lives.

Companies screening employees with Facebook are looking at information that students haven't voluntarily given them access to. This is very different from running a background check on an employee for three reasons. First, job candidates are notified that the company runs a background check on potential hires, while in this situation candidates do not know. Second, the standard background check targets for specific information that may legitimately disqualify a candidate such as criminal records. Facebook, on the other hand, is a collection of information, most of which is not relevant to the business.  Lastly, background checks are run by professional third parties to avoid recruiters prying into candidates’ lives.

Even if we ignore the privacy issues I just mentioned, it is difficult to argue that the image created by the information on Facebook will be an accurate representation of the employee. Humorous pictures or wall posts on the students’ profiles, for example, can often be very misleading. As John Taylor, the VP in IAC (a large media company) said, they do not use internet sources in their hiring process because “[they] have no idea what's fact or fiction”.

It is also important to note that recruiters screening candidates using Facebook are more likely to be influenced by personal biases. For example, information about sexual orientation and political views is made available by Facebook. Decisions based on such information are not only unethical, but also illegal by the Anti-Discrimination laws. While the recruiters may not intend to allow personal biases to affect their decisions, they should not have to put themselves in situations where such biases can have the appearance of affecting the decision – much like how recruiters cannot ask about the candidate’s religion in an interview, even if they are just curious.

Companies must also be aware that they may be placing the recruiters in very difficult positions. Students’ information on Facebook is viewable only by others users from the same institutes. To gain access to students’ profiles, companies will have to ask a current employee, who is an alumnus of the same college, to do the background check. This places the employee in a very difficult ethical position, as he is forced to report on and potentially harm the prospects of a fellow classmate. Furthermore, it is questionable as to how ethical it is for a company is ask an employee to use a personal account for company business.

As I have mentioned earlier, there is a fine line between personal and professional lives. Not only is using Facebook for screening crossing that line, thereby infringing on the privacy of the candidates, but we also risk making ill decisions and possibly discriminating unfairly. Finally, it is as Nancy Bauer, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, said, while employers may not be breaking any laws, “people who look at sites such as Facebook in order to … spy on students are taking advantage of the internet in a way that's not all that different from the way that sexual predators exploit it.”