Warning this article may contain opinions of the author that you and iTWire don't necessarily agree with. Don't let them get away with it - have your say with a comment!

No. 1 Story

ACCC clears Optus to scrap HFC network and use NBN instead

The ACCC has cleared, provisionally, the proposed deal between Optus and NBN Co under which Optus is to be paid around $800m to shut down its HFC network and transfer customers onto the NBN. read more

Promoting brand 'you'

Opinion and Analysis

Not only is your submission published (as 'Leanne' noted previously), but you have zero influence over the publication in which it appeared.

How many people have actually read the terms-of-use for any social media site they use?  Allow me to offer a quick summary.  They will say (in lovely, flowery legalese of course) something to the effect that "we really appreciate that you submit your words, pictures and connections to our site; thank you very much, we own it all now."

Even if you do find a way to permanently remove something from a social networking site, you still have other problems to contend with.

Although Google maintains the current version of a web page, they provide a cache link which can potentially recover an earlier version of a page - containing exactly the information you deleted.

Beyond that, there is the Internet Archive (also known as the Wayback Machine), this site takes regular snapshots of a huge number of websites for permanent storage - they claim 150 billion pages.

Some sites claim to offer secured storage as a web-based file backup environment; but I wouldn't trust those either.  I recently came across a company-confidential document on one of these sites in what was clearly a backup of someone's My Documents folder.  Visible for the world to see, accessible through a simple Google search!

Many of the articles referenced on the previous page talk more about the issue being permitting bosses and fellow workers be 'friends,' or whatever the term used by a specific site.  But this is not the problem - this is simply blame.  

The problem is that the information was posted in the first place.  Guess who is to blame for that! 

The title of this article is "Promoting brand 'you'."  This is an attitude as much as it is a suggestion.  

There have been many stories of potential employers checking Facebook for information which conflicts with the resume provided by a candidate.  There was even a story recently where a potential employer demanded passwords to all social media sites on which the candidate had accounts (including on-line email accounts) as part of the background check.  Needless to say this caused some consternation amongst privacy advocates.

Coming back to the title, surely if you know that someday you may be judged by your postings, then perhaps you should think twice about what you say.  

Long gone are the days of acquiring a job fresh out of school and leaving it to retire.  Really, you should take every opportunity to promote yourself.  To promote brand 'you.'

But that would ruin the whole concept of social media, wouldn't it?