Beyond the Scroll: Why I Don’t Support Social Media Checks in Hiring

A recent article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on May 1, 2025, got me thinking more critically about the impact of social media on job applications. The article shared an opinion from an HR professional who mentioned that their hiring process involves specifically looking for negative posts on candidates' social media profiles. They claimed that these posts could reveal a lot about a person’s attitude, mindset, or even their ability to handle criticism.

This approach struck me as problematic. What happens if someone, venting after a tough day, posts something negative? Does that reflect their professional capacity? Should a single negative comment, out of context, become the basis for hiring decisions? This made me reflect on the growing trend of social media checks in hiring, and why, personally, I’m not a fan of this practice.

The Illusion of Knowing Someone

Social media can be a highlight reel, a journal, a soapbox, a joke space—or all of the above. What it rarely is, though, is a fair or complete reflection of how someone performs at work. Yet employers are increasingly turning to it for “clues” about personality, attitude, or culture fit.

Let’s be honest: there’s a lot of room for misinterpretation. A tweet from five years ago without context. A photo from a party. A strong opinion on a polarizing topic. These things might be visible, but should they be relevant? Is it HR’s role to sift through them in search of red flags?

What we think we’re “learning” about someone online can often be projection. We fill in blanks. We make assumptions. That’s not hiring—that’s speculation.

The Real Risk: Bias, Overreach, and Inadvertent Consequences

One of the biggest risks of social media screening is bias, conscious or not. Whether it's someone's religion, politics, appearance, relationship status, or lifestyle—once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And while we may pride ourselves on being objective, we’re still human. This creates a minefield for discrimination risks, and frankly, a shaky foundation for decision-making.

There’s also the issue of power imbalance. Candidates often don’t know they’re being screened this way. There’s no context or consent. It’s a silent process, and that’s what makes it problematic. If we wouldn’t feel comfortable being judged for our private weekend posts, why is it acceptable to do the same to someone applying for a job?

In some cases, social media scrutiny can lead to unintended consequences. I've heard of situations where an employee or candidate, seeking advice or venting their frustrations with the company, inadvertently shares negative comments about co-workers or the company online. HR could then receive a copy of this, which, in some cases, results in the person being cited for company violations. What started as a private expression of discontent can morph into a weapon used against them, even if the grievances weren't meant to be official complaints.

I had an experience where I was personally insulted on LinkedIn by an individual. In response, I reported the incident to the company, which led to higher management taking notice. This eventually resulted in an internal investigation and a decision on how to handle the situation. However, the outcome of that investigation was never shared with me. This highlighted the complex and often opaque nature of internal company processes, especially when personal behavior outside of work crosses into professional matters. In this case, the company’s social media policy became central in determining the course of action, as any comment made publicly is considered an "unofficial stance". This policy helped frame the issue and guide how the company responded.

What I Say to the Other Side

I’ve heard the argument from some HR leaders that reviewing a candidate’s social media is just “part of the reality now”—a necessary step in protecting company culture and reputation. I understand where that comes from. In a digital age, it’s easy to feel like everything is data, and anything visible online is fair game.

But I don’t agree. Just because we can look doesn’t always mean we should. Hiring should remain a process grounded in relevance, fairness, and consent—not one where we scroll through someone’s personal life in hopes of finding confirmation bias.

Hire for What Matters

I’ve always believed in hiring based on how people show up—how they engage during the recruitment process, how they speak about their work, how they solve problems, how they treat others. These are the things that signal potential, growth, and alignment.

We have solid tools for this: structured interviews, assessments, simulations, reference checks. If we trust the process, we don’t need to rely on Instagram photos or Facebook rants to make a call.

Sure, if someone’s profile is publicly inciting hate or violence, that’s a different conversation. But that’s not the norm—and it shouldn’t be the basis for making social media reviews a standard step.

A More Respectful Path Forward

As HR professionals, we must ask ourselves: are we creating a culture of transparency or one of quiet judgment? We set the tone for trust in an organization, and that begins before someone is even hired.

If a company insists on social media screening, at the very least, it should be transparent and consistent. Candidates should know it's happening. There should be a clear policy outlining what’s being looked at and why. And there should be accountability for how that information is used.

But for me? I’d rather skip it altogether.

I choose to believe in the strength of a fair hiring process—one that stays in the lane of professionalism, respects boundaries, and gives people a real chance to show who they are at work, not online.

Question of the Day: Have you ever been judged—or protected—by what you’ve posted online? I’d love to hear your thoughts, whether you’re in HR or have been on the other side of the table.

Citation: Stop Screening Job Candidates’ Social Media