zlacker

>>winsto+(OP)
This is horrible, what a breach of trust. I used TB to stealthily interview for jobs, had a good experience. Recommended them to others. Now I see that if I hadn't seen this post, I wouldn't have known about this and those details would have been public, which had the potential to seriously undermine me at my current position. I'll opt out tomorrow, but according to others it sounds like the visibility link was somewhat hidden. At least with this they're well on the way to becoming the next LinkedIn, at least by their practices. What a dark pattern.

>>gansty+u5
Your Triplebyte profile will NOT contain any data/details about you or your job search that will undermine you at your current employer. We should have included a screenshot and more details in the email. I'll talk to my team about following up with more details tomorrow. We are talking about a lightweight profile, like your Stack Overflow or HN profile, to provide us the canvas to release badges. That's it.

>>ammon+Pa
Hey! Welcome to your first PR disaster.

I would suggest you step away from any scripts and turn on the company ears. Simply explaining what is going on more “clear” and repeating it more often probably won’t get you anywhere good.

Why does this make your users uncomfortable? How can you work with them to achieve your product goals without undermining your relationship with them?

Good luck!

>>iovrth+Xd
> How can you work with them to achieve your product goals without undermining your relationship with them?

Literally just make it opt-in.

>>travis+je
Opt-In doesn't help them achieve their product goals.

Triplebyte as founded isn't working so they're trying to take a valuable asset they have (engineers looking for jobs) to compete with linkedin

The problem with bootstrapping a linkedin competitor is the same chicken-and-egg problem with networks generally. You need people on it for people to join it.

What Triplebyte wants is your identity public. That's the product goal. The problem is that opt-in won't get them that. What are the incentives for anyone to make theirs public?

How many people who were searching for a job without telling their company are going to opt-in to make that public?

Most certainly not enough to bootstrap a LinkedIn competitor.

So someone had the idea to move fast and break things, either:

a) hoping no one would notice

b) hoping the fallout wouldn't be bad

c) not caring that the fallout would be bad

d) not knowing that there would be fallout

none of the above are particularly inspiring. It does seem hard to miss this coming

>>localc+Df
> How many people who were searching for a job without telling their company are going to opt-in to make that public?

I think that's the real issue: timing. The only time this can work is when someone has just resigned or joined a new company, so they can (and are actually willing to) "legitimately" pump up the volume about themselves.

So make it an easy opt-in triggered by these events. Any triplebyte candidate that "closes the deal" should get opted-in automatically. Anybody without an ongoing work relationship, should get opted-in automatically. Everyone else, you hold fire until something significant happens publicly, at which point you gently prod them. You can even ask, when someone signals they are looking for a job, "do you want your profile public at this time? It's a pretty cool thing! If not, no biggie, we'll ask again once things change."

It's not rocket science to do this respectfully and it's sad that they didn't.

>>toyg+Yo
> Any triplebyte candidate that "closes the deal" should get opted-in automatically. Anybody without an ongoing work relationship, should get opted-in automatically.

Am I misunderstanding you? If you "get opted in automatically", then it's no longer opt-in; it's opt-out.

>>JadeNB+HC
Yeah sorry, I should have been more precise: I meant to say that it should get turned on for those users automatically at those times.