how risky is it to post about politics on social media?

by Alison Green on February 25, 2025

A reader writes:

Am I shooting myself in the foot by engaging politically in a public way on social media? And how should I weigh the pros and cons? Will a future employer even check for my social media, and if so, what will they think? Can I just temporarily disable my social media during the job search, and will that be sufficient?

I am currently in a full-time graduate program (middle career going back to school) and expect to be applying for jobs when I finish in about three years. The types of jobs I would apply for are mainly in academia (meaning I would also probably apply for government grants to fund my research at such a job). If that doesn’t pan out, I would look at government research posts or independent research roles like think-tanks. And if those don’t pan out, I would likely go into an industry role.

I am very concerned about the actions of the current administration, and I occasionally post my thoughts on social media. I use a respectful tone, but people who like the direction of the current administration would and do express disagreement with my views. I try to respond thoughtfully to any comments, or if I cannot think of a reasonably kind way to respond, I don’t reply. For example, I have posted reputable articles describing the way NIH funding is being cut and expressed that I think this is harmful to the future of critical health research. For another example, I posted that I think people can disagree on the right steps for responding to the war between Russia and Ukraine, but I will not be tricked into forgetting the facts of how it started, and I included a 2022 news article from a mainstream right-leaning news source that states Russia initiated an invasion of Ukraine.

Philosophically, I think that people who show cowardice when the stakes are fairly low are unlikely to suddenly become brave when the stakes matter more, so in that regard, I don’t want to kowtow to this administration or make decisions in fear, especially because being a student is probably the most freedom I’ll ever have to express my views. If things were to become truly authoritarian, I would like to be the kind of person who would stand up for what is right, even if there were consequences, and I think this is a small way of taking a stand now. Also, to be clear, social media is not the only thing I do — I also call my legislators with some regularity, and I am involved in my community. I guess I don’t want to be known for staying silent towards injustice, but I also don’t want to be needlessly reckless with my career fighting windmills. What do you think?

To answer your first questions: Yes, you should assume future employers may check your social media. Yes, some of them may have opinions about your posts and it’s possible you won’t be hired because of some of the opinions you’ve expressed there. (That is very much a thing that is happening at this particular moment for the types of jobs you’re interested in.) It will probably be enough to lock down your social media during a job search, but that’s not guaranteed; posts get forwarded, reposted, and saved in places you might not account for. (And at any point Elon could spontaneously decide to make all Twitter data fully public, etc. etc.)

If you want a fully risk-free approach to social media’s intersection with your future job searches, the most cautious approach is not to post about politics. On the other hand, if you see social media as essentially a town square, that’s asking you to opt out of public dialogue in a way that you might not be comfortable with.

I tend to think that there are many more effective ways to stand up for what’s right than posting on social media (and it’s good that you’re already doing some of those) and that not talking about politics on social media doesn’t mean you’re staying silent in the face of injustice — as long as you’re not staying silent in other parts of life — but it also depends on what kind of platform you have and who you’re engaging with. Everyone has to sort through that calculation for themselves and decide what feels right to them.

To help you do that calculation: the risk is not nothing and there are ways to mitigate it ahead of a job search if you want to (like removing past postings and locking down your socials), but those mitigation measures aren’t 100% reliable.

You may also like:
{ 240 comments }

{ 240 comments… read them below }

  1. a bright young reporter with a point of view*

    There is also the option to have social media accounts that aren’t tied to your identity at all. I have a facebook, but all my others have an online persona that very few people know is me. And frankly, I think that’s the way to do it unless you specifically need to have socmed for your career.

    1. ArchivesPony*

      That’s me! haha. All of my social media is under a name that’s really ambiguous and only my FB (which is locked down and really safe public posts from years ago). Part of the reason I did that was I did have a stalker but also I wanted to talk about stuff without people finding out and telling my parents. So I don’t put my location (unless it’s general like US or Midwest) or talk about specifics what I do, other than my title).

      1. AnotherOne*

        Most of my friends and I have our social media accounts under our first and middle names. It means you can’t just search for us but we can find each other- and people who know us and see us as a suggestion will go ‘oh that person.’

        1. Aww, coffee, no*

          This is me. My surname is very distinctive so my FB account is Firstname-Middlename. And even then I make an effort to keep it entirely locked so that only existing FB friends can see anything I post.
          I guess it could be found with an image search of my face, but frankly an employer who went to those lengths to find my FB isn’t someone I’d want to work for so I don’t care if they don’t like anything I post.

    2. Minty*

      This is what I do too. Social media accounts that have my legal name on them are locked down, friends-only, etc. The accounts that are public don’t have my legal name or my main email address. Keeping your online and offline lives separate is great, I highly recommend it.

      1. a bright young reporter with a point of view*

        My tumblr friends can know my AO3 or bsky, but they can’t know my real name. My real life friends can’t know my tumblr or AO3. That’s how I like it.

        1. ArchivesPony*

          I have a couple of tumblr people that know my real name and one real life friends knows my tumblr (Only like three people even know I have an a03 account so that I’m not concerned about LOL).

          A part of the reason I chose not to have my social media under my real name is back in the day when I started a Livejournal was because my mom found my diary and read it, so I wanted something she couldn’t find.

      2. Elizabeth West*

        I’m friends-only on Farcebook and my account does not have my face on it. I probably need to change my profile pic on LI since it’s the same as Twitter and Bluesky, but my small press is listed on LI because it’s on my resume, and there is no doubt it’s me. My pen name is not my real name but my LI name is.

        If someone doesn’t like me being a flaming liberal, they aren’t going to hire me or buy books, and I probably don’t care to work for them anyway, so eh.

    3. Miss Chanandler Bong*

      You can actually create secondary Facebook profiles now that don’t have your real name. You still should be cautious because they’re tied to your main profile, but someone would really have to go digging in order to find out information about you.

      1. LaurCha*

        … unless Bezos decides to make all Meta data public. He’s not as unpredictable as Musk but he’s no more trustworthy.

        Related: I cannot tell you how irritated I am to use the phrase “Meta data” when it doesn’t mean “metadata.”

        2. Beany*

          I hated it when people started talking about “cyber” as a noun rather than just a prefix — this may have exploded around the 2020 or even 2016 Presidential elections.

          Recently, I’ve been hearing the same thing with some other IT-related prefix, but it’s mercifully slipped my mind for the moment.

            1. Quill*

              The connection between cryptocurrency and cryptofascism begs a joke I am not smart enough to make at this time, but yes.

    4. Rosyglasses*

      Was coming here to say this as well — especially when I was doing more active front line protesting, I really locked down anything under false names and identities. Not to say that is 100% fool-proof, but it can be helpful.

    5. Mothwing*

      Maybe it’s because I’m old people and grew up on forums and stuff, but I think it’s super weird that people tie their online presence to their “real” identities. It used to be standard that you didn’t tell people your real name, where you lived, or identifying information online, and now you’re expected to do all of those? And you’re supposed to tell potential employers about what websites you use? Where does it end? Do you need to show your employer your fanfiction archive? Your DeviantArt account from when you were 14?

      Yeah. Keep your online identity separate from your real one. And if asked about your social media, just say, “I don’t use any.” It’s fine!

      1. North American Couch Wizard Society Member*

        I think the tendency to use “real” identities came with social media because at least in the beginning, it was intended to link you to your IRL social circle rather than to a wide community of similarly anonymous people. It obviously doesn’t prevent your posts, comments, likes, etc. from getting shared very widely but I think that’s probably why people got in the habit of using real names for Facebook/Instagram where they wouldn’t even consider it for Reddit or AO3.

        Except me, of course. “North American Couch Wizard Society Member” is my IRL name.

      2. Sara K*

        I think the problem with this is that people (prospective employers?) think it’s weird if you have no social media. I am also an old and some of my SM presence is definitely not linked to my real name (this comment for example) because that’s how I learned to internet. But I think having a SM presence linked to your real name is useful in that it signals to employers that you are a real person with a history. I’m really careful about what I post on real name accounts and generally it is only work/profession related or somewhat innocuous posts about non political hobbies.

        2. Despachito*

          “it’s weird if you have no social media”

          Maybe I am getting old but most of the people I know don’t have social media, and those who do only have them for work purposes.

          I’d consider it rather a pro than a con. But that’s maybe just me.

      3. doreen*

        I think that depends on your purpose. There are loads of different reasons to use social media and websites. For example, nearly everyone I know is on Facebook under their real name ( or sometimes first middle) because for the most part, they are there to stay in touch with some relatives and old friends and using a different name doesn’t serve that purpose because n one will find them.

      4. Sweet 'N Low*

        I’m only 25 and I think it’s weird as hell, too. I don’t use social media anymore (with the exception of visiting a few specific subreddits), but when I did everything was either a) not connected to my name/identify in any way or b) very specifically curated content related to my job. The ides of having a I-post-whatever-I-feel-like social media account with my name attached to it sounds nightmare inducing…. Then again, I find social media as a whole kind of nightmare inducing, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

      5. DC person*

        If LW is serious about joining a DC think tank, it is vital that she have a social media account under her own name. She should build a portfolio of op-ed pieces and tie them to her social media presence.

    6. Middle Name Jane*

      LinkedIn is my only public social media account in my name. I’ve got a private IG account not tied to my name, and a Twitter and Bluesky account not tied to my name.

      I’ve never had a Facebook account, but I have a really common first/last name combination. Should I worry that employers might get the wrong “Middle Name Jane” on Facebook?

      1. Kara*

        I’d probably do a quick search for your name and see what comes up. You’re probably fine, but it doesn’t hurt to make sure.

    7. Lorikeet*

      This is it. When I first joined Facebook in 2007, I was cautious enough that I used a version of my name that is legal, but not the one I am most commonly known by. I did it this way so that people who knew me well could find me, but others that I didn’t want to find me couldn’t. I’ve done this ever since with all other social media and been very glad I had that foresight back then.

    8. Freya*

      This. None of my social media has my full legal name at all – first name, yes, last name, no – as much as anything because although my birthname was uncommon, it was still much more common than my current legal name, which is almost certainly unique as a combination of first name and last name. And if you know my legal name, you can find out my address with a little bit of searching of publicly available government databases.

      People I work with get a very sanitised version of my public persona, my family gets a different sanitised version, and people who are underage or who I have tagged as safe-for-work-content-only get a different sanitised version. It takes a bit of work to set up, but much less work to keep friendlists and equivalent up-to-date!

      1. Freya*

        Oh, and I never post where I’m going to (although I might post where I’ve been) for reasons of ‘address publicly available with minimal work’, unless I also post that we have a puppysitter staying with our giant dog who Does Not Like Strangers In Our Home. Nearly 30 years ago, a university club I was involved with used to put committee members’ postal addresses in their newsletter, so that people could contact them, and during one long weekend event that they were all at (which was advertised in the same newsletter), every person on that committee had their house broken into.

    9. Chris Upchurch*

      I do pretty much the exact opposite. Most of my social media accounts are under my own name. The few exceptions are either very old accounts or ones created specifically to talk about sensitive topics (personal finance matters, for instance).

      It seems like many problems people run into on social media occur when they post something intended for one audience that reaches a different, larger audience. Posting under a pseudonym can help contain a post to its intended audience. However, if something gets under people’s skin deeply enough, they can move heaven and earth to connect the pseudonym to a real name (and sometimes, scarily, a real phone number, address, etc.).

      For me, using my own name serves as a reminder to me not to post anything I wouldn’t want all sorts of people (friends, acquaintances, coworkers, potential employers, etc.) to hear me say. Just my personal approach, but if it’s not something I’d want out there for everyone, it’s probably better for me not to say it in the first place.

    10. Kimmitt*

      I came here to post this. Don’t talk about anything controversial under your own name. Absolutely feel free to go goblin mode under your handle “IsAnActualLlama” on Bluesky.

    11. Bitte Meddler*

      My name on my main social medias is a phonetic spelling of my real name. My name on other social medias is a pseudonym.

      I have never, not once, ever, posted a picture of myself over the age of 22 on the internet (and I’m 58 now, so that pic of me when I was 22 and wearing sunglasses isn’t going to help you confirm that the profile associated with that pic is me).

      My LinkedIn profile is my real name, of course, but my pic is a “logo” I created when I was forced to upload a profile picture for a business communications class. (“Professor, are you actually requiring that I put my image in the public sphere, or are you testing that I know how to upload a photo to LinkedIn?”).

      Gods bless the people who are comfortable putting every aspect of their lives online, but that has always been a huge Nope for me.

    13. Quill*

      Came here to say exactly this. I do not do politics, or acknowledge the fact that I’m queer, on anything easily found if you google my legal name.

      (I also just no longer do facebook, but that’s a separate issue.)

    14. Beth*

      Second this! My name is not Beth; it’s a nickname that I got early on in my online activity. There’s a thin trail that could conceivably connect Real Me with Online Commenting Me, but it would take some dedication to find it, and it gets thinner as time passes.

  2. HigherEd Boundaries*

    In addition to locking down your account (like making it private or adjusting the settings) you can also adjust your handle/account name so it doesn’t look like it’s you. Things like First Name/Middle Name, or Middle Name/Last Name, and again locking it down so only friends or friends of friends can see it.

    You’ll have to do a lot of legwork by looking into the platform privacy settings for each account, but I also recognize the community that is happening on social media right now, and how engaging in it can be helpful.

    1. ArchivesPony*

      Yep. When Instagram required more than just a username, I just used my first initial, which a super common first initial for a first name. Plus my username, that unless you know me personally would every tie to me.

  3. I should really pick a name*

    If you’re posting stuff on public social media, it’s worth asking yourself if it’s actually accomplishing anything.

    There is a lot of noise out there, and there’s not much compelling reason to listen to a random voice on the internet.

    If you’re posting things where it can only be seen by people you’ve friended, you remove a lot of risk of employers finding it, AND there’s a significantly higher chance of people listening to what you say, because they’ve explicitly opted in to hear your opinions.

    2. owen*

      but on the other hand, if you’re posting things where it can only be seen by people you’ve friended, it will only be seen most likely by people who already agree with you… so for the ‘speaking out’ part, it’s not really effective.

      plus there is increased risk of creating an echo chamber

      not to mention, things escape ‘private’ friend group channels all the time and can still potentially be located. it does decrease the risk of a future employer finding it, but it does not eliminate it

      1. I should really pick a name*

        Actually, people sometimes find out that their friend groups aren’t as aligned on topics as they thought they were.

        I haven’t found public “speaking out” to be particularly effective. I’ve rarely seen it change minds.

        1. Lenora Rose*

          It rarely changes minds *in the moment*; people don’t tend to flip all at once. It’s not how we’re made. And we struggle, often visibly, if given information that runs counter to our existing opinions.

          That doesn’t mean putting more opinion out there is ineffective. What it is, is cumulative.

          A person whose mind wasn’t changed when they ran into one statement might still remember it, and remember the next , and the next many moments, and learn over time. It’s a part of how people get radicalized to the right, for once; it’s been studied. AND it’s how people end up joining equity movements. And we can’t pretend we and we alone are immune, because we’re not.

          I made a conscious choice of who I followed, and to actively choose to follow more and more Black and Indigenous and LGBTQIA and generally strongly leftist voices, usually further to that direction than I am, specifically because if I’m going to be influenced into an opinion by those around me, I would rather be pushed further into positions that offer more compassion to others, not less.

          1. Dasein9 (he/him)*

            Yes. It also does make a big deal for members of targeted groups to see people speaking up for them. I’ve personally known young people who chose more hopeful paths in life (education, addiction counseling) after seeing people speak up for LGBTQ+ rights on social media, for instance. Their upbringing and communities made a good life seem impossible and they nearly gave up until they saw the real possibilities available.

            Social media isn’t just chatting with friends; it’s profoundly affected how we communicate and form community and we’re only just starting to learn how it works. Predators are taking advantage of that but they won’t have the upper hand forever.

            1. Elizabeth West*

              Both of these, your post and Lenora’s. It’s the main reason I’m still on Twitter, because I’m sure as hell not selling as many books on it as I used to. That, and I’m stubborn and refuse to cave. :)

          2. Caller 2*

            Also, if you are posting about action items – things that people who want to make a change can actually do – that is indeed useful for people who may already agree with you but not know how to put their thoughts and feelings into action.

          3. I take tea*

            I remember a woman from the Baptist Church (I think) who spoke publicly about how people on Twitter made her rethink and change. Not by ridiculing her, but by engaging. So it can happen.

            For me, it’s important to see that there are other people than haters out there.

            1. I take tea*

              Westboro Baptist Church it is, and the person was Megan Phelps-Roper. She even wrote a book, called “Unfollow: A Memoir Of Loving And Leaving The Westboro Baptist Church.”

        2. Annony*

          I think it depends on what you count as “speaking out”. Posting opinions and feelings generally doesn’t do much. Posting facts sometimes does. I have seen people change their minds when they learn details. For example, hearing about specific projects being cut or specific people loosing their jobs makes it more “real” and less abstract. It gives “efficiency” a face instead of simply a numbers game. People don’t feel attacked and are more likely to absorb the new information and that type of post is less risky because neither side should be afraid of facts (and if a job doesn’t want to hire me for posting facts, I really don’t want that job).

      2. Freya*

        I have people in my extended social circles who are on my social media for extended social circles reasons, but whom I mute unless I feel up for whatever brand of content they post on their social media. No one who believes that people like me and my friends and family should be dead, of course! But there’s definitely people I have friended who, when I feel troll-like, I can go to their profile, check their recent posts, and respond with a link to a scientific study or ten to whatever they’ve decided to post now. It’s not because I think they’ll change their mind, because they won’t, but because I want the people around them who feel like me to know they’re not alone.

    3. Ally McBeal*

      Yeah, I got really mad last week about the attempt to gut the 9/11 Survivors’ Fund and had a post all written out before I realized that I only really wanted one person to see it because she irritates the crap out of me with all her “I voted for the pro-life candidate” garbage… so I thought better of it and quit the app instead of posting it.

    4. LaurCha*

      I don’t post to change minds or promote my “platform.” I seek comfort and comradeship and knowledge-sharing with my like-minded friends. A lot of people do that, especially those of us in deep red states whose like-minded friends are far away. I don’t care if it’s “accomplishing anything” on the large scale. I’m socializing. With my friends. And my friends and I? We talk about politics and art and history and law and current events and music and food and whatever else.

      1. I should really pick a name*

        So it sounds like it makes sense to share things with your like-minded friends instead of publically.

      2. RunShaker*

        Based on my own experience, whatever I had posted didn’t change anyone’s mind but oh my, the few that just wanted to argue and be internet trolls. I ended up signing petitions, contacting my congress people and of course voting. I also work for a conservative company and am client facing so I am concerned about someone recognizing me.

      3. SadandScared*

        I feel thes ame way. It can be reassuring knowing you’re not the only one who holds certain views. People always make fun of AITA posts from someone who is clearly NTA, but sometimes if you find yourself in a situation where you have multiple people around you insisting the sky is red, getting feedback from neutral third parties can be helpful.

      4. Tea Monk*

        Yea sometimes I’m just shooting the shit. It hurts to hear all this anti blackness and I like being able to vent a little. I mostly talk about my hobbies which aren’t safe for work either. I nevet understood having your real name online

    5. OP*

      My main motivation has been to raise awareness among my personal network of friends about what’s happening. I just confirmed my privacy settings on FB and am set to only allow friends to view my posts, although they are shareable by those friends (mostly I post articles with a brief thought, so it seems like they usually share the original article with their own thoughts). I have a politically diverse network, and our media ecosystems are so isolated right now! I try to glance at news sources across the political spectrum, and if something seems questionable or over-confirms my preconceived view, I check it in another reputable, more balanced source (for example, confirming things from NYT in Reuters and Associated Press), but I know most folks don’t necessarily see multiple sources.

      1. Mentally Spicy*

        I believe that on Facebook if your posts are set to “friends only” they cannot be shared outside of that group. Although of course that doesn’t prevent people screenshotting your posts and sharing them publicly.

        More importantly, however, I think it’s a good time to reflect that most social media is run by billionaires who have shown a worrying tendency to court the current administration. Trusting Zuckerberg to keep your posts private is perhaps not the best idea right now. These platforms are not neutral “town halls” where your speech is welcomed and protected. They are highly profitable private businesses run by billionaires with capricious motives.

        I hear good things about Bluesky.

        1. Grenelda Thurber*

          Our information, i.e. the things we post and read, links we click on, who we follow, etc., is literally what Zuckerberg is selling. It’s actually what has made him rich. He is not keeping our information private. It’s just that most people can’t afford it. (Yes, I realize that a lot of the data is cumulative and not person-specific, but I still stand behind my point)

      2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        I don’t think you’re using the word balance correctly. You seem to be using it in the Fox News sense. There is no such thing as a balanced view on many topics: gravity, evolution, a round Earth, just to name a few. Starting from the premise that there must be “another valid viewpoint” is how we got to where we are now.

        I also think you are misusing preconceived. If you have reached an opinion after thought and assessing your personal values, that’s fine and good. Reading and sharing an article that agrees with you isn’t a problem. Be open to new ideas, sure, but you don’t need to go seeking invalidation of each of your own opinions to “prove” that you’re unbiased. You’re not. It’s okay to be biased. That’s what having an opinion is.

        1. OP*

          I have a center-left viewpoint, and sometimes the articles I read that villainize the right or lionize the left seem too good to be factually accurate. So I check to see if Reuters or Associated Press is reporting the same essential facts. That is what I mean by balanced. For example, my cousin shared an online post that said the Republican budget plan was to cut Medicaid by such and such amount and give tax cuts for the wealthy by such and such amount. While that aligns with my preconceived view of what is going to happen, before sharing that, I tried to find an actual news article reporting the specifics of the budget plan. And as it turns out, at the time she first posted that, the actual budget plan was not out yet – the information my cousin shared was based on what was written in Project 2025 or another such source that influences current policy but wasn’t (yet at that time) based on a concrete budget proposal put forth by Congress. So I did not share it, because I was not confident of the facts, and I kept checking back every few days to see if the actual budget proposal had been released yet. I try not to share things like internet memes or opinion articles without making a reasonable attempt to verify the core facts. I do glance at Fox News to understand what the “other side” is seeing, and I can confidently say, almost none of the administration’s actions I find outrageous or statements I find to be deceptive are reported as such (or reported at all) there. I still am confident they are happening, because they’re reported on many other news sources. So it’s helpful for me to calibrate what is out there and try my best to contribute to a responsible information environment. I hope that helps clarify my meaning of balanced and preconceived.

          1. HB*

            Stay away from controversial subjects if you want to be sure it won’t affect your employment. Online posts rarely change anyone’s opinion.

      3. T.N.H*

        I wouldn’t trust your privacy settings to do much, unfortunately. There are AI bots that scan your social on behalf of companies and get just about everything.

      4. Nancy*

        If it is set friends only any posts they share will come up for others as saying unavailable. Don’t accept friend requests from future employers.

    6. Salty Caramel*

      It depends on what you’re posting, really. FB ditched fact-checking, so it’s important to do it yourself, for example. If I say, “X did Y,” and then say why I don’t like it, I’m going to point to an article, a publication, or in the case of Congress, the site showing the votes.

      Solidarity is important too. For some people it is simply not safe to speak out, so showing them there are people behind them does accomplish something.

    7. learnedthehardway*

      I’m not sure how much it will change anything, but it is definitely INFORMING my American in-laws about my views. None of them will be in any way in the dark, for example, that Canadians do NOT want to be part of the United States, and will resist by any and every means necessary – whether that’s boycotting American products (already happening), tariffs, etc. etc. etc. Some people are enlisting in the military. Personally, I’m seriously considering re-enlisting in the Reserves – if they can use a somewhat out of shape medic, I’m there.

      FYI – the vast majority of Canadians are absolutely ENRAGED by the mere suggestion that the USA would annex our country, by the way. So – again, using social media to inform people who might not otherwise know.

    8. Goldie*

      I quit cold turkey about 2 years ago when I realized that the algorithm was literally designed to make me angry. We are not in control of this robot. When facebook and twitter started, you would see your connections’ posts. Now we see what the robot wants us to see to keep us scrolling.
      I put my time in on social media, so I don’t want to tell someone else what to do, but I think it is important to remember that it isn’t necessarily the way to impact real life.

      1. Caller 2*

        Same. I could have written this post. I too quit 2-3 years ago when I realised the algorithms were just serving to keep me engaged by making me mad, and I’m so much happier without social media.

        I also realised around that time that a lot of the (left-leaning) political posts I was sharing on Facebook suddenly seemed to get way less engagement at a certain point, and so obviously weren’t making it into my friends’ feeds. I guess they changed the algorithm, because nothing else had changed.

  4. ScreamingBeagle*

    If you’re inclined to post things on social media, could you use the time and energy to write to a rep or congress person instead? Less risk, more impact.

    2. juliebulie*

      OP said:

      Also, to be clear, social media is not the only thing I do — I also call my legislators with some regularity, and I am involved in my community.

      1. ScreamingBeagle*

        That’ll teach me to skim the last paragraph. In any case, I still think doing literally anything else would be more productive unless OP has some kind of platform.

    3. LaurCha*

      OR! And hear me out: BOTH. I talk with my friends about politics AND I write my congresspeople. Porque no los dos?

      1. ScreamingBeagle*

        I agree that it’s both, but I’ve found offline discussions to be more impact full. Your mileage may vary.

    4. Dinwar*

      Is the “less risk” part true, though?

      The reality is that federal work includes a huge section of the economy–many people work as contractors for the government. And many of the decisions being made right now have profound impacts on those contractors. By writing to one’s congresscritters one would by definition be attempting to manipulate available funding, which is generally considered a bad thing. However, not objecting to some of the things going on now is also considered bad (silence is support). And it’s not clear to me that one must abdicate political activities merely because one has a job.

      At what point does that create an apparent or actual conflict of interest?

      Please note that I’m not (for once) discussing the moral aspect of it. Opposition to tyranny is proper even if you benefit from it! But I’d also rather not get fired if I can avoid it.

      1. doreen*

        As a general rule, writing to a legislator about a matter of public interest is not going to be a conflict of interest. The “conflict” is important – for example, if I am a government employee I have an interest in my agency being funded , but writing to a Senator in my personal capacity doesn’t conflict with my official duties. On the other hand, doing it from my government email address on government time is something different. The US Code has a section that specifically says
        “The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.”

    5. OP*

      I call both my senators and my rep about two times per week right now. (In the past it’s been more like once a year.) I’ve heard from friends who’ve worked in legislative offices that calls are more important than letters, although I sometimes write, as well. Unfortunately, whereas a senator’s office typically fields about 30 calls per minute in their voicemails, they’re now fielding about 1,000 calls per minute. And I am in a swing state, so I have no doubt it’s constant. They basically tally up the top 2-3 issues in a given day and how many people called on each side, and that’s all they can do. It’s hard to think it’s making any difference given the raw numbers right now, but I keep at it. Mostly I try to spend time with my neighbors of all stripes and persuasions just building general good will. I go to a politically and racially diverse church, as well, and I think just knowing people personally helps everyone not to feel so much animosity towards an unknown hypothetical stranger, but to experience loving fellowship with someone quite different. Some of those church people are the ones who comment on my posts in all different directions, and we hug each other on Sunday.

    6. DC person*

      Less risk, more impact.

      Far less impact, assuming OP builds up a decent following on social media. A random note to a representative (especially outside of your district) will carry less weight than an article by for example Matt Yglesias.

      Of course, if you have only a sporadic presence on social media, or don’t actively curate your presence, or limit your posts to friends and family only, then yes, your voice will not carry weight.

      1. OP*

        Some clarifiers – I only share my posts with friends and family, because those are the people who I think could actually be influenced by my personal experiences. I don’t have delusions of grandeur that I will build a major following at this point! Haha (So in that way, my experience won’t be everyone’s!) I have had some interesting and respectful engagement with people who disagree with me. I think it has made some difference for those people who I know well and respect and love outside social media, maybe just planting an small seed, especially people from my politically and racially diverse church in a swing state. They will typically disagree by offering an alternative from their life experience, and I may respond by commenting with some combination of the ways I appreciate their life experience and their character as a person, areas of common agreement, areas where I think we may be miscommunicating, facts I think they might want to consider that could alter their thinking,
        and/or areas where we may just fundamentally disagree. If I can’t think of something kind to say, I don’t reply. I’ve noticed those who respond to my posts are often those who also have been in longterm prayer groups with me or who have shared meals with me and know my character and know that I respect their character, as well. Others who respond tend to be former classmates who I respect. Occasionally , some friends have had more tense exchanges with each other in the comments, which I generally don’t involve myself in. I’m guessing those who don’t know me well either don’t see the posts or (probably wisely) just scroll on by. But the posts are shareable or could be screenshotted and shared. As for contacting my legislators, I only contact my own district’s Congresspeople and leave my full contact information, including address, to make my district clear. My rep has live staff people who answer the phone probably 1/3 of the times I call, with the remaining instances being voicemail, and my senators are always voicemail.

        1. Fierce Jindo*

          I’ve always had a social media platform like yours, with lots of good-faith discussion among a very diverse set of people, and I think the people who knee-jerk tell you this doesn’t matter are being ideological for their own reasons.

          Of course it matters if you’ve found way to have reasonable and fact-based exchanges with people who otherwise would never encounter your views. Keep doing that.

          Your fears of being someone who does the easy thing instead of someone who stands up for what’s right are well-founded (for all of us!) and you’re smart to worry about that.

  5. Jennifer Juniper*

    Some tips that may help:

    1. Never post your real name anywhere online.
    2. Never post your photos anywhere online.
    3. Avoid getting your picture taken.
    4. Use a different screen name for each social media platform (for instance, I use a different name for my social media posts than I do for this blog).

    1. mango chiffon*

      Would also suggest using a different email to sign up for these things from your professional email!

    3. OP*

      I think for me, that would defeat the purpose. My posts are set to be visible to only my fb friends, but I live in a swing state and have a politically diverse network of friends, family, fellow members at my church, etc., and I think there’s something to saying, “Hey, I’m your neighbor, I’m your friend, and based on my own life experience or expertise, I think this policy is harmful.” Often, those people comment their disagreement on Wednesday and say hi to me as a friend at church on Sunday. And I think that’s the value I see in the activity. I also share plenty of funny videos and non-political news articles just for fun. But I don’t think calling out into the void anonymously is something I care to do based on my own personality and motivations.

      1. learnedthehardway*

        Agreeing – I think you might run a bit of a risk employment opportunities-wise, but then again, would you want to work for a company whose leadership is diametrically opposed to your own? And on the flip side, you may find that your support of diversity, equity, the environment, whatever it is you’re supporting – actually is viewed favourably by other companies.

        As long as you are not denigrating people and are presenting reasoned statements rather than ad hominem attacks, I think that you’ll find you’re a voice in your community that other people need to hear. People really need to NOT be in an echo chamber, and we all need our biases to be questioned. The person who disagrees with you on Wednesday online, but who you shake hands with at church on Sunday needs to know that real people are affected by their views.

        1. AnotherSarah*

          This is where I land. If your respectful posts are spurring basically respectful conversation, I think that’s a win for democracy and it’s unlikely to have as much of an impact of someone stirring things up.

      2. Sylvia Fisher*

        It sounds like you are being incredibly thoughtful about this. I’m in academia, albeit in a much more senior (and potentially more protected) role, and I’ve made the same calculation: it matters to show up and say what you believe in. It matters to people who are affected by these decisions (e.g. immigrants, members of the LGBTQ+ community), and it may matter in terms of anchoring what is “normal.” Nothing about what is happening right now is normal.

        It sounds like you actually have a greater chance of helping friends see other sides of an issue because you post respectfully, with facts, and you have friends who aren’t necessarily all politically aligned with your view. I agree with Alison that it’s a risk, but I’m not sure I would feel very comfortable self-censoring either.

    4. Wallaby, Well I'll Be*

      This is unrealistic to the point of being satirical. Furthermore, plenty of people need to have an active social media presence under their real names for the purposes of their careers. Folks, take a breath. Social media usage is fine. It’s fine to be findable online. Don’t post nudes on main and you’ll be ok.

  6. Stuart Foote*

    It’s considering the tone of your posts as well. If you post twenty times a day and constantly call your opponents names, employers may be concerned, while posting reputable articles (as OP appears to be doing) will probably not harm your job search too much. Basically, don’t come across as an asshole or too extreme and I’d guess you’ll be fine.

    1. Beth*

      In most fields, you’re right. But someone who will be applying for academic (read: highly competitive) jobs that rely on government grants (read: partisan government officials might have an opinion on the hire) in the next few years is working with a different metric than your average corporate job searcher. I think OP is right to be worried that even measured, polite posting could impact their job hunt.

      That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wrong thing to do. If OP has a big platform and their social media presence has a demonstrable impact on others, they might decide it’s more in line with their values to use that voice than to hunker down. If they find a lot of community via their social media activity, they might distance it from their professional name (e.g. use a pseudonym or stick to sites where your name isn’t attached to your account) and keep going with that. But it’s definitely worth weighing their options.

    2. Techie Boss*

      I second this. It’s not that respectful and thoughtful posts the way OP describes will never torpedo a prospective job, but those kinds of posts are much less likely to do that. And if they do, it may be a useful screening tool to weed out employers who would be heavy handed about that while you work there.

  7. Gomez*

    My social media under my real name is fairly politically anodyne. I save my political critique for in-person discussion and my psudeononymous accounts. I feel the second option would be useful for OP if they’re worried — FrankensteinsMyLittlePony Dot Tumblr Dot Com can blog about their grievances with impunity.

  8. Emily Byrd Starr*

    This is not a popular opinion, but personally I think the world was a better place before social media (I’m Generation X, which means I remember the pre-social media era very well) and that it would be a better place if everybody deleted their accounts. I deleted my Facebook account in 2021, and it was the best thing I ever did for my mental health and wellbeing. Anything positive that you can get from social media is either 1) available elsewhere or 2) something you can do just fine without.
    There have been numerous studies confirming that regular use of social media leads to increased anxiety and depression. It also causes misinformation to be spread throughout the world instantly.
    If people are your true friends, they will stay in your life even without social media. It may take a little more effort to stay in touch with them, but it’s worth it. Call them, text them, email them, and get together with them. And if deleting your social media accounts means that you lose touch with certain people, then they were never your true friends to begin with, just acquaintances, and so you’ll manage fine without them.

    1. E*

      Older millennial here and I completely agree with you. I miss the days where it’s primary purpose was to simply keep in touch with far flung family and friends. If I were the LW, I should focus on the non social media political work where it will have more impact anyway.

    2. Silver Robin*

      k.

      Lots of my friends are alive now because the internet and the social media that came with it let them connect to communities that did not exist in their geographic location. Gave them information that was not available at the local library. Taught them things about the world that nobody in their community would express.

      Social media is an entirely free and low effort way to expand one’s understanding of the world, of people different and far away, in any meaning of that word. And it does not necessarily require that you know what to search for. That last bit is really important, because if you do not even know what you do not know/understand, then how are you going to look for it with any intentionality? I have heard so many stories of people who did not even realize there was language to describe their experiences until they came across a post in their feed, or met somebody online who talked about xyz. And that works for a lot of different things, not just gender, not just sexuality, not just mental health. I was able to actually find somebody to study Torah with when I was stationed remotely because of a Facebook group, which was a big deal in my personal journey with Judaism. Does in-person Torah study exist? Sure does! But I would have had to start doing that years later and waiting would have cut off one of the few avenues available to me to study my own religion while I lived in a tiny, foreign town, with no other Jews around. Now I have done that study, I have a friend out of it, and I have a stronger relationship with my own observance. With a big thanks to Facebook for facilitating the connection.

      Are there genuine down sides? Absolutely. None of what you said about the issues with social media are untrue, but it is similarly disingenuous to claim that everything available on social media is equally available off of it.

      2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        Yeah, I thought of this – minority communities being able to find each other *has been* really valuable. However, that is the old internet, the old social media. It’s different now.

        You are being sold, your search for “what you don’t even know” is now guided by algorithms that take you where it is profitable, not where it is right for you to learn what you didn’t know. The search itself is being tracked and those in power can hurt you by following you and your search results. Those in power can delete/cancel the accounts of those not in power. I see nothing but downsides to social media now and I’m beginning to think the free internet itself is on the verge of becoming a thing of the past.

        Which is sad, but I’m also seeing my IRL community respond by starting to divest from socials and turn back to “analog”. A poets group in my town has just announced they will be publishing a monthly paper zine! They announced it by Gmail, but it’s a first step.

        1. Jennifer @unchartedworlds*

          I feel I should put in a word here for the Fediverse. It’s not famous like Facebook or Twitter is famous, and demographically it’s disproportionately white tech blokes, but there’s a few million people on it now so plenty aren’t white tech blokes :-)

          Chronological timeline, ability to follow hashtags, ability to temporarily hide spoilers etc. Culturally one nice thing is the common inclusion of alt text for graphics, so there’s more participation than I’ve seen elsewhere from visually impaired people. And because it’s made up of many smaller units which can talk to each other, it’s not vulnerable to the whims of one rich person.

          Has its flaws but could be worth a look for some people. I’ll put a couple of links in another post.

          1. Jennifer @unchartedworlds*

            Fedi.Tips
            “an unofficial non-technical guide to using Mastodon and the wider Fediverse.”
            https://fedi.tips/

            AAM account there!
            https://noc.social/@askamanager

            A thing by me from when I’d been figuring out how it works:
            https://www.uncharted-worlds.org/blog/2023/03/choosing-an-instance-for-your-fediverse-mastodon-account/

            though the easiest way is probably to ask around if you know anyone already on and get them to give you a hand :-)

      3. Turquoisecow*

        100%

        Elder Millennial here and Facebook in particular lets me maintain friendships with people across the country and around the world whom I would not even know existed if not for social media. Are there downsides, absolutely, but I also have made sincere online friendships and they have helped me feel a lot less miserable and lonely, especially during the pandemic when getting out to meet people was impossible.

      4. Dinwar*

        I live in the Bible Belt. Finding a Pagan group without social media is extremely difficult–turns out ruining people’s lives for having different beliefs makes them hesitant to speak up, who’d’a thunk? Without social media we’d be far more isolated than we already are.

        “Abuse does not negate use” is a principle as old as writing, for a reason.

      5. Burnt Out Librarian*

        Agreed! My social circle was 100% online for years because of various reasons. Nowadays I barely talk with my online friends, but I care about them and want to know what’s going on in their lives (especially those right now at risk due to decisions made by the current administration). Social media needs a lot of work, but I remember what it was like before algorithms and billionaires destroying everything they touch, and it was genuinely just another form of connecting and communicating with others. The ensh*ttification (as Cory Doctorow so perfectly put it) is to blame for the reasons social media now causes so much harm– I mean, we always had cyberbullying and bad actors, but that’s just human behavior writ large. But there is still a lot of value to the relationships we cultivate with one another online. We just now have to jump through a lot more hoops thanks to opportunists who took a good thing and made it a profit-making garbage compactor.

        1. Dinwar*

          “The ensh*ttification (as Cory Doctorow so perfectly put it) is to blame for the reasons social media now causes so much harm…”

          I don’t entirely agree. The issue is, social media allows you to find like-minded people. When it’s people in a positive community, it’s a good thing, sometimes a life saving thing. The problem is, evil groups (and I’ve no problem calling them such) can utilize the same process–they can reach out to like-minded people and realize that there’s more of them than they thought, and gain power in society that way.

          I’m not sure how to allow positive groups to do this without allowing evil groups to do this. I’m not sure you CAN differentiate between the two; there are enough people who think my religion, profession, and hobbies are evil (I’ve received death threats for studying evolutionary biology) that I’m well aware that any attempt to block damaging groups from using social media would inevitably lead to my groups being targeted in such a way.

          1. Burnt Out Librarian*

            True, but I think Groups of Bad People have always organized and unfortunately always organized. The lack of Facebook definitely didn’t prevent the damage done in the 1960s by hate groups. I think the ensh*ttification instead kind of negates a lot of the positivity created by connection we make with others online because of things like algorithms and shadow banning and the popularity of “selling your lifestyle.” This is especially the case when you realize algorithms both encourage you to stay on a social media feed longer (and thus see more ads) and tend to promote material with a lot of engagement, whether that material is harmful, untrue, or ragebait-y or not. I hadn’t realized how bad it had gotten until I started using Bluesky more and really appreciated the chronological timeline, which seems to be a relic of the past on most popular social media platforms. Then there’s the fact that there are so many people out there spreading disinformation and misinformation in the name of profit (or to survive, in some influencers’ cases). I blame the panic about seed oils and the rise of raw milk drinking both to the ensh*ttification– it’s almost impossible to filter out the scaremongering and ~traditional lifestyle~ content once it sneaks its way into your feed.

            I mostly feel like social media as a harmful thing largely deals with newer things like this rather than the ability for hate groups to organize on it, but it certainly doesn’t help that the things I highlighted above happen, and it’s certainly easier to radicalize someone with an algorithm that is basically hand-feeding them posts and resources that confirm their biases. But that’s also something that can be combatted with more media literacy rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

      6. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Okay, let me rephrase myself. There’s nothing positive that *I* was getting from Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram that I couldn’t get elsewhere or that I could do just fine without.

    3. Pizza Rat*

      GenX here too. I remember when people were all in a rush to create their own web pages and develop their presence on the internet. I take regular holidays from social media and it’s good for my mental health, whether I spend the freed-up time with friends, with a pile of comics, or other things that help me avoid the laundry.

      It’s not going to go away, though, so it’s worth the effort to spend time configuring and curating the experience to get what you need to out of it. I have some friends and relatives who are never going to leave it and it’s my only way to keep in touch with them.

      I’ve got ADHD, so it’s easy for me to get caught up in doomscrolling unless I set myself a timer and then step away from the app when it goes off. I’m sure other people have tips and tricks as well.

      1. Irene in VA*

        Wonderful advice, Pizza Rat. I (a boomer who’s thrilled by the ability to communicate instantly online) will be making “the effort to spend time configuring and curating the experience to get what [I] need to out of it” soon, thanks to you.

      2. Emily Byrd Starr*

        I have ADHD, too, which is another reason why I deleted my account.
        After reading the responses on here, I concede that maybe social media can be helpful for some people who experience issues that I don’t. I guess it’s like anything else: religion, money, fire, etc. it can be beneficial or it can be harmful. For me, however, it was just making my ADHD and depression worse. It wasn’t worth knowing what people who I haven’t seen since high school did this past weekend.
        I will never, ever, go back to Facebook. Social media addiction is just as real as alcoholism and drug addiction, and for some people, the only solution is to stop entirely.

    4. MigraineMonth*

      I’m an elder millennial who doesn’t use social media, but the picture is a bit more nuanced than that. The type of social media and the way you engage with it is significant in how it affects your life and mental health, and this is true even among teens. Social media can be about consuming the messages sent to you by society, advertisers or the platform. It can also be about forming communities around common experiences or interests with people who are in other locations. It can make someone the target of harassment, or it can be the first place someone feels safe coming out as LGBT+ or the only place someone can talk with someone else with their rare medical condition.

    5. Neutral Janet*

      I wish it were true that everything was available elsewhere but sometimes it’s just not. I’m an outlier in that I’m mostly housebound by disability/ chronic illness, but the support groups for my condition (and many others) are overwhelmingly on social media and not available anywhere else (unless you pay). And even the paid ones you’ll never find if you don’t use social media. And you won’t hear about most clinical trials or new treatments either (you’d be amazed at how many clinical trials have a web presence that consists of an instagram post with maaaaybe a contact email address).

      I say I’m an outlier but there are millions in my situation (which I know because of social media!) and our numbers are growing all the time thanks to long covid. I’m equally horrified when I think about living this way before social media, and when I think about the course that most social media platforms are taking.

      Anyway, only tangentially related to the OP’s question, but just wanted to push back on the idea that we’d all be better off if we just disconnected from social media. For many of us it’s not that simple

    6. learnedthehardway*

      Historical view – people were just as ignorant and dangerous pre-social media and the internet. At least now, you CAN find alternative points of view. You just have to be willing to challenge yourself. You’re not stuck in your own echo chamber unless you either want to be or don’t curate your feed.

      1. Wayward Sun*

        That’s only sort of true. The algorithms used now try to maximize engagement, and nothing drives engagement like anger. So modern social media is essentially a machine designed to get you angry and keep you that way.

    7. Wayward Sun*

      I’ve cut way back on mine because I didn’t like who I was on social media. Like most people, I was a much angrier, more strident, and more dismissive person there. It was either cut it out or continue losing friends.

    9. jeyne*

      when we’re talking about something that’s become such a significant part of how people interact with each other and that’s used in such a wide variety of ways, i think nuance is really important. there are ways in which social media can be very problematic. there are also ways it can be extremely useful.

    10. Rincewind*

      “And if deleting your social media accounts means that you lose touch with certain people, then they were never your true friends to begin with, just acquaintances, and so you’ll manage fine without them.”

      I don’t know about that…I have many friends from around the world that I’ve never met in person. It started as a forum, but those have pretty much died, and the only contact information I have for these people is their social media pages. If I planned ahead and collected email addresses I could stay in touch, but if I just up and delete, I’ll lose contact with most of the people that I consider a good friend. And honestly, since we started contact as a forum, where everyone could see everyone’s posts, emailing 1-to-1 just isn’t the same.

    11. Elizabeth West*

      I agree to some extent, but as I remember it (I’m also Gen X), not having social media didn’t stop people from being negative. It didn’t stop bullies. It didn’t stop misinformation, although it’s a lot more prevalent now (and if I quit, who’s going to counter that misinformation?). I mean you have the entire internet at your fingertips but you can’t be bothered to look something up to see if it’s true? At least now we CAN look stuff up without having to deal with the dang library card catalog.

      The common denominator here is PEOPLE. Social media sucks because people suck. I’m not willing to give up my online communities — I have been in my chat room for over twenty years. I hate Farcebook, but most people I want to keep in touch with, including family, are on it, especially as other sites that hosted other groups I’m in have gone defunct (Google Plus, anyone?) or made themselves harder to use (MeWe).

      For better or worse, I’m as online as anyone can be. I do take steps to mitigate its influence on me, but it’s here, and it’s not going away unless the entire internet goes away. I hope that doesn’t happen because I literally could not do my actual job without it.

      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        You’re right that it didn’t stop bullies. However, once our generation left school in the afternoon, we were free of the bullies for the rest of the day. Social media has made it so that the bullies have 24/7 access to us, which is one reason why so many more adolescents experience anxiety and depression than they did 20-30+ years ago.

        As for misinformation, social media is 100% to blame for the greater prevalence of it. Before the internet, the only way to make information available to the general public was through radio, TV, and print media; all of which fact-checked and edited the material before printing or broadcasting it. Today, anyone with an internet connection can post something and instantly make it available to the entire world. Sure, there were conspiracy theorists back in the day, but without a platform like social media, they were limited in how many people they could reach.

        Stay on Facebook if you want, but I am never, ever, going back because of the damage it did to my mental health.

    12. Fierce Jindo*

      Did you miss anyone’s company during the pandemic?

      Then you understand that acquaintances and context-dependent friends bring something real to our lives. Pretending otherwise just because the context is an online one is silly.

      1. Emily Byrd Starr*

        I actually would have quit Facebook a lot sooner if not for the pandemic.
        But the pandemic is over now, and online communication is no substitute for real-life connection.

      2. Emily Byrd Starr*

        Also, I was 30 when social media first became popular. I managed to keep in touch with my family and friends just fine for the first 30 years of my life.
        Do what you want, but I am never, ever going back to social media. Nope, not even if I’m required to have an account for work. If that ever happens, I will quit on the spot.

  9. I didn't say banana*

    Given that posting about politics has some career risks, the benefits need to be more carefully considered. Are these posts going to change anyone’s mind? Do they open a respectful dialogue? Do they build a following that can be leveraged (eg encouraged to vote)? If the only benefit is feeling like you can’t stay silent, there are other ways to achieve this.

    Also, would an account under a fake name solve this?

  10. Former Retail Lifer*

    My Facebook account has my real first name, an alternate last name, a real photo of me, and its kept private. The only public posts I have on my profile are some about lost dogs. An employer can’t see anything but those.

    My public accounts don’t have my name or face or any info that would allow easy identification.

    Just make sure you keep it neutral when you can easily be identified. If you have an anonymous account, post what you want. I don’t know what your likelihood of being doxxed is, but I don’t think I have the engagement for anyone to bother with that effort.

  11. Ann Nonymous*

    LW, you can also join a private group where you can post/comment/vent. I created one during the 2016 election where a number of us can let loose. Nothing is completely secret or private, but if you’re also careful in these rooms, you will likely not be “caught” by an employer.

  12. Celeb*

    As for locking it down in the future – I made a comment on Reddit 5+ years ago. A few months ago a screenshot of that comment was featured in a Tick Tock video that went viral and had hundreds of thousands of views.

    Fortunately, it was a low-stakes celeb gossip quip but what a trip to see it years later so randomly.

  13. Calyx*

    Counterpoint: authoritarianism thrives on the assumption that everyone secretly agrees. By posting as you have, you display bravery and show that educated, competent people don’t agree. That has worth in itself.

    I agree with all the usual cautions about being professional in the way you speak and what you post about, and that we should be doing other things as well, but standing up publicly for what’s right has worth.

    2. Peregrine*

      I agree, and think it’s frightening to see so many people just saying not to post anything political, when political means supporting diversity programs or opposing the party that ruled Germany during WWII. The current party in office and the tech bros that are helping have been vastly helped by social media. I think it’s very odd to see how social media, and the misinformation many people share on it, have helped elect a president and then have people say posting does nothing.

      1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        Posting does nothing *to change people’s minds*. It can reinforce what people already believe.

        1. Turquoisecow*

          It can help people feel less alone if, for example, you’re the lone liberal in a very red community. And I don’t think that’s nothing when it comes to either political organizing or mental health.

        2. Rincewind*

          It might show an oppressed minority that you’re a safe person to talk to. It shows an oppressed person that the horrible things people say aren’t true, aren’t valid, and won’t stand unopposed.
          It does a lot for my mood when I see supportive comments on a bigoted “political” article (peeing, going to the doctor, and schoolchildren playing sports shouldn’t be considered political topics but here we are…). It’s a reminder that no, not everyone agrees with these viewpoints and that people will stand up for me if needed.
          It’s a small thing but it’s not nothing.

    3. MigraineMonth*

      It’s a tragedy of the commons situation. If everyone acts primarily in the interests of keeping themselves safe, we’re “complying in advance”. It’s worrying how many people who aren’t yet being targeted by this administration are deeply afraid and making changes to avoid potentially being targeted in the future.

      On the other hand, LW says they are taking other actions, such as calling their members of congress. Unless they have a significant following, I’d concentrate my efforts on those and similar effective actions rather than screaming into the social media din.

    4. toolegittoresign*

      I agree — it shouldn’t be professionally controversial to say disrupting NIH research funding causes real problems that have real negative impacts. That’s just facts and an entirely professional assessment. I wouldn’t want to work somewhere where they are uncomfortable with employees posting facts on social media.

    5. 40ish*

      Yes, I agree with this. OP says it is important to them to stand up to authoritarianism and the time to do so is now. It has career risks but if everyone thinks only of that the opposition will be silenced.

    6. fhqwhgads*

      Counter-counter point: the people who own the social media companies are cool with the authoritarianism. If everyone who felt as OP does deleted their accounts on all the big socials tomorrow, it’d have a bigger impact than any given post.

      2. Rincewind*

        Yeah, but if we all did that, we’d lose the communities we’ve built in those places. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a local queer scene, or the time to go out, or the proclivity to go Pride events (generally noisy, too many people, and often involve alcohol/clubs/partying). Deleting my social media and losing touch with the wider queer community feels too much like complying in advance.

    7. OP*

      I appreciate this, and it has been my thinking thus far. I’m not out here saying outrageous things. But I do think this direction is authoritarian, and in many small ways that add up to a bigger stance, it’s important to me to say that I don’t and won’t assent to it. Prior to this, I would describe my social media presence as mostly apolitical joke memes, with a rare political piece.

      1. Bike Walk Bake Books*

        An additional thought on this point: Saying what you’re for and what you’re working toward is in line with your career goals. That doesn’t need to include negativity and name-calling that won’t contribute to your professional standing. Speaking up for things has power and you may be able to frame something in a way that helps someone else recognized shared values, like “Oh, I too don’t want people to die of preventable diseases.” Doing that without adding something they might automatically push back against may provide space for a subtle shift in their thinking, whereas an either/or win/lose framing will draw a response in kind.

        1. Musical Adventure*

          I agree with this. Many of our jobs have been political or are going to be politicized; for me as an educator, “I like a stable state that supports education” or “research shows authoritarianism is bad for education” might be “political” content but they are normal things for someone in or adjacent to education to say.

    9. SchuylerSeestra*

      People should post about what they feel comfortable about and feel well informed on.

      I’m a Black Woman, and I’ve taken a huge step back with my political posts. I used to post a lot. I used to make an effort to keep people informed. I made the point to warn people exactly what would happen if the current administration was reelected.

      It’s not that I don’t care. I do. Im just tired and to be honest pissed off that we are in this situation.

  14. It Me*

    The other practical suggestions about social media accounts aside, I have jobs on my resume that give away where I stand even if a potential employer didn’t go searching the internet for me. Early in my career I was worried, but at this point I’ve reached a point of zen about it. Do I want to work at a place that wouldn’t hire me because of those positions? Do I want to spend half my waking hours giving them my hard work?

    Not really. It probably limits where I end up working, but I’m happier than I would be otherwise.

  15. desk platypus*

    In my public facing job, one of my coworkers is targeted by members of the public because of his public Facebook account. We’re in a deeply conservative area and all my coworker’s liberal posts are brought up in public forums as proof of “the liberal agenda takeover” even if he’s just one part of our organization. It’s not just white noise, it’s had an actual effect on how our conservative higher ups deal with us. We’ve since been advised to keep private profiles.

  16. Lils*

    I have made a choice similar to Calyx’s suggestion above. I post loudly and frequently about what’s happening right now. Everyone knows who I am and where I work; I used to be in academia and now I’m in industry. Some people here know who I am too (hi, friends!).

    *I don’t keep it professional or try to mince words because what is happening right now is absolutely bananas and will lead to harm and death for vulnerable people. I can’t stay silent or not point out what is actually happening. Frankly, right now, the F word is more than warranted. Anyone who supports the current regime would get eaten alive on my page and I would be fine with that. Choices have consequences.

    *I’m not an internet troll, I’m a real person who sees what is happening and is quite alarmed. I don’t want to use a pseudonym–I want folks to see real information and alarm from a real person who they know. It’s powerful.

    *I have some basic protections on my accounts but I know people screenshot my posts and send it to my bosses because it’s happened before. To those people, I wish you the day you deserve. I don’t want to be fired or lose opportunities for speaking out, but I’m willing to take that risk.

    *YMMV on social media posts. Because of where I’m from, I’m some people’s only liberal friend. People have told me I’m the only way they’re seeing reliable info. For me, I feel moved to continue, at least for right now.

      1. Lils*

        I hope you didn’t take my comment as a directive or criticism towards you, OP. You must make your own risk calculations relative to your situation.

        I should have specified I’m mid-career with a solid reputation, which gives me protection, and I am relatively privileged. Not everyone can make this choice, but since I can, I am. I think it’s important for us to take the risks we can tolerate to resist the regime.

        I can also say resisting is absolutely terrifying to me and not fun at all. I hate it, but I can’t not do it.

        1. OP*

          I did not take it as criticism. I often wonder who I would have been during the civil rights movement, for example. There were clearly people doing actively racist things, clearly people resisting at great personal risk, and a lot of people sitting on the sidelines privately agreeing but fearful of the personal repercussions. And I wonder, when are the sidelines justified and when are they just complicit? I don’t want to regret being complicit, which is why I say things publicly under my own name, call my congresspeople under my own name, etc. and have thought, well if there are consequences so be it. But I also wanted a a pulse check, so I wrote in! I also don’t want to be needlessly volatile and turn people off. I’m hoping to persuade and possibly motivate one other person to call their congresspeople that day or do whatever that one next step might be.

          1. Lils*

            Hi again OP. One thing I heard a few years ago: if you’re not making some people angry, you’re not doing it right. Basically–if you’re not making bigots mad, you need to try harder and do more :)

            I like to remember this because when I make people mad, it shouldn’t necessarily cause me to change course. You naming things clearly and point out what is wrong is going to make some people mad, and that’s ok.

  17. Do You Hear The People Sing?*

    Can we even call it “politics” at this point? It’s not a disagreement about tax policy, it’s a disagreement about the existence of our country.

    I posted about politics on social media while job-hunting and now I’m trying to decide between two equally appealing job offers.

    But then I’m in a field where fewer than 10% of workers belong to the Republican Party.

  18. AnonFed*

    I will just say as a Fed, I appreciate people speaking up on social media. Under the Hatch Act and other rules I do retain my First Amendment rights and am not silenced, but there are risks with various laws being violated daily. And we’re getting a flood of misinformation and bullying on social media because of bad actors. It does mean a lot to have people speak up for us and I thank people for that.

  19. AnotherOne*

    I guess the alternative side to this is- as someone who is hiring, should I be googling people? Checking their linkedin pages?

    I’m the hiring manager for the first time and thought it was best to not click on a linkedin page, even if it was provided, because maybe it would influence me. But maybe I should be clicking.

    At least linkedin pages if someone is sending the link.

    1. Glengarry Glenn Close*

      There’s nothing wrong with looking at someone’s LinkedIn page before interviewing – that is extremely common – they’re certainly looking at you!

    2. Another Hiring Manager*

      I do. With LinkedIn, there is often more detailed descriptions of work done than is on the resume. If there are public FB posts I will take a look, but many people lock down much of their feed.

      If you’re aware that looking might influence you, it’s great you’re aware. You’ve got the opportunity to step back and ensure your evaluations are more objective. If you’re not sure, get a second opinion.

    3. Bike Walk Bake Books*

      I work for a public agency and our HR advises us explicitly not to search online about candidates. We work from the information they provide to present their experience to us, interviews, applied exercises for the finalists that we discuss in an interview, and reference checks (which we try to have go beyond confirming dates of employment).

      We’re supposed to provide equitable access to opportunity. If one person has a giant, positive social media presence and another has locked theirs down, why should I explore either of those to create a potential for bias in my decision-making about what they’ll bring to the actual work I’ll be paying them to perform? If I’m not hiring for a social media manager I don’t need to look at their FB etc.

      Looking at zero social media and running robust recruiting, screening, and interviewing has resulted in a team of absolute rock stars.

      I say this as an early adopter and active participant in quite a few platforms including the space I still call Twitter because X is what you call something when you can’t think of a name for it. I used it to find/follow people to listen to and learn from, especially diverse voices sharing lived experiences I don’t encounter, and it had great value for that. I built a wide and deep professional network in a specific niche that I reinforced by meeting people in real life at conferences and feeling as if we already knew each other. I miss what it used to be.

  20. Emily*

    I’m surprised that Alison didn’t include another of her common pieces of advice here, which is that yes, some employers might screen you out over this, but that might be a filter you actually want. I work in academia, and if there are academic institutions that would refuse to hire me for publicly opposing the current NIH cuts, I don’t want to work there. As usual, it’s up to you how picky you can afford to be. But personally I wouldn’t want to work anywhere that’s opposed to the type of social media presence this poster is talking about, and I can afford to screen out those employers.

    1. Burnt Out Librarian*

      This. Anyone who takes umbrage to me calling out harm and hatred and insisting on propriety in the face of political violence isn’t someone I want to work for, with, or around.

      1. Burnt Out Librarian*

        (The hypothetical person is the one insisting on propriety in the face of political violence, in case that wasn’t clear. I have a case of the swirly brain today, my apologies.)

    2. AnonFed*

      And to underscore how alone and abandoned those of us in the government can feel. Yes, seeing all those people mail 5 things to that email box did make me smile on a stressful day and it ousted back against the trolls who just couldn’t understand why we were objecting to responding (because Opsec is a thing).

    3. Banana Pyjamas*

      This is where I land as well. I refuse to be scared, I refuse to be quiet, and please feel free to self-select out of hiring me. My Facebook is public, in my name, with my work history. All those decisions were on purpose.

    4. OP*

      This has been some of my thinking, as well. The framework you provide is helpful as I think about what kinds of things are ok to post about. I would say my most common posts have been about cuts to health research funding and cuts to international health programs – both of which are in my career wheelhouse. The only post I can think of that hasn’t been in those areas is the one about Russia, which in my mind was me wanting to assert myself against what I view as a common abuser tactic of trying to confuse a victim about facts (which I was feeling touchy about, because abuse is another topic I’ve been reading about in my field of work).

  21. WonderWoman*

    There’s a couple more factors to consider that I haven’t seen others bring up yet:

    – It might seem like a good idea to rule out potential employers who might be turned off by your social media activity, but if you’re applying to large and diverse organizations, there’s always the chance that whoever is in the business of screening you out doesn’t reflect the entire company’s views.

    – Tone is really hard to convey in writing. What might seem to its author like well-reasoned and thoughtful dialogue could come across very differently to a stranger.

  22. Burnt Out Librarian*

    I come from the land of Internet Past, before Facebook, where no one ever used their real names online because you never know if you were talking with an axe murderer in AOL chat. All my social media is under a pseudonym, one that my online friends are familiar with so we can find one another on the various platforms as they implode or swarm with bots and deplorables, and my only Real Name public stuff is carefully curated because in my past life I was a children’s librarian and if you work with kids you can’t be human or adults apparently have meltdowns. (I wish I was kidding.)

    Definitely separate your online life from your offline life. Anyone doing a discount background check (a.k.a. Googling your first and last name) will not find you if your Bluesky or Similar Site That Will Not Be Named is under “AgentFoxMulderIsMyDad” or whatever.

    Privacy is becoming rarer and rarer these days– grasp whatever we have left and use it while you can to express your real thoughts on what’s going on.

  23. YesPhoebeWould*

    Except for the most senior roles (VP or above at major corporations), or companies or roles that have unusual exposure, the OP should be fine locking down social media during an active job search. With Facebook, restricting access to ‘Friends” only should help. LinkedIn obviously should never be used for political posts.

    When a potential employer does do a social media review, usually they are not working hard on it (I did some of these for a previous role). If it isn’t easy to find via a google search or a bespoke search on the social media sites themselves, your political posts are unlikely to be a problem. There are ways to dig pretty deeply, but very few companies are going to work that hard unless they have a very good reason to.

  24. HR Exec Popping In*

    Sadly, you need to assume any future employer (or funder) will see what you post online. You are smart to be thinking about that. I’m not saying it is right or should influence their decision making, but it might. And all organizations have both very liberal and very conservative employees. My employer looks fairly conservative to the outside world, but leans more progressive inside. But we have a handful of VERY conservative leaders here and there. Remember, organizations by themselves, are not an entity that makes decisions. It is a conglomerate of many people all making individual decision.

  25. MissMuffett*

    I’ve always wondered about this aspect of social media in job hunting – let’s assume for the purpose of this question that the Dear Leaders of the Social Medias aren’t going to just make everything public – If you have a private social media presence, even under your real name, employers might try to see your profile but they won’t see anything you have behind the privacy wall. Just like any other random person who might look you up. Right?
    I have a college kid and have always told them to just keep stuff locked down (and also still don’t post anything stupid) but I was thinking if you have it set to private, you are generally safe from employer’s prying eyes.
    Or am I missing something?

    1. Silver Robin*

      You are correct; especially for the baseline skim that an employer would do. Nobody is going to go digging particularly hard over a job application (with a caveat for things that require security clearance of some kind, but those are not the norm). Hiring managers are looking for blatant warning signs; keep things set to “private” or “friends only” or whatever the setting is for that particular account, and kiddo should be fine.

  26. Lenora Rose*

    While I agree with locking down parts of social media, I believe most of my public posts on Facebook ARE political. They aren’t extreme, they don’t vilify the other side (any more than they vilify themselves) but they are undeniably pro human rights and equity. And I have no intention of locking them down more. Because frankly, I don’t *want* to work for anyone who thinks an orange shirt saying “Every Child Matters” * or a post supporting LGBTQIA or a comment on climate change is “too much”.

    * NOT, to be clear, a response to Black Lives Matter, despite its unfortunate resemblance to “all lives matter” pushback, but a response to Residential Schools.

  27. Educator*

    Wow, it is fascinating to hear other perspectives on this. Social media is seen as such a massive liability in primary and secondary education that teacher training programs generally advise future educators to lock it down completely. I have not had a public profile under my real name in twenty years.

    I once had a colleague get in trouble because there was a Facebook photo of her in the same frame as a red Solo cup—she was not holding it, and she did not post the photo, but the implication that she might be partying was enough.

    Folks in some roles like teaching, policy, some government work, etc. are held to wildly higher and less reasonable standards. If you think life might take you those directions, you need to be a lot more careful.

    1. OP*

      One thing I find interesting is that I started following Robert Reich (economist) and Heather Cox Richardson (political historian), who are both academics with HIGHLY political social media presences. That said, they both have tenure, which changes the calculus a LOT.

      1. Educator*

        Yeah, I also think you are also in a different category if your work is actively focused on politics and your social media presence is an extension of that work. And if you have had a high-profile political role, then sharing political opinions makes good professional sense because people will genuinely value your insights.

      2. DC person*

        Plenty, I daresay most, pre-tenured academics are active on social media

        Eg Dan Drezner has tenure now, but he was very active before he got tenure and even described himself as having an “untenured perspective”

    2. Rincewind*

      I was in college back in 2005-2009, and even then I remember people in the Early Childhood Education program being warned against public social media. I had a friend who was dual-majored in Education and Modern Dance. She went through her social media and took down every photograph of her in a leotard or anything close to that revealing; it was a recommendation from her professors.

      1. OP*

        Fascinating. That’s around when I was in college, as well. That was the very early years of people graduating with social media accounts, and I think things have loosened up quite a bit since then. I remember being told things like, “Oh, don’t have a picture of you holding a wine glass at your wedding, as that insinuates you were partying,” and even then, I remember my response was, “I get not having photos funneling beer, but if someone is so uptight that they don’t want to work with someone who socializes in any capacity, I don’t want to work with them either.” There is nothing on my social media that I would be embarrassed for my grandma to see, and I think that’s a pretty good standard.

  28. Too many dogs*

    I work for a public library. My job requires working with the general public all day. It also requires us to be neutral on lots of sensitive subjects, including politics. When I am hiring, I do look people up on social media, using first, last, middle names, and nicknames. If someone’s posts are either almost all political/sensitive subjects, or what they are posting is vitriolic or blatantly offensive, I admit that it will affect the way I look at that candidate. I wonder, “will they be able to keep their cool when Mr. Opinion says something they strongly disagree with?”

    2. Burnt Out Librarian*

      I don’t like that we have to take a “neutral” stance considering *libraries are not neutral* but I understand how it’s a safety issue and library theory is very different from library practice AND the ALA isn’t exactly doing us any favors by taking at best a tepid stance on book banning and event censoring but… Well, insert long-suffering sigh here.

      I’m just glad I got out of public libraries before the current administration, because I’m not sure I could be calm and rational at the circulation desk right now.

    3. OP*

      That’s a great point. I will say, I have had multiple friends say to me in person, “Wow, I read your post, and I can’t believe how calmly and kindly you are replying to people’s comments.” So hopefully that would at least be a point in my favor. But it’s a good point about the volume of posts. They used to be 99% funny memes and 1% politics, but this last month they’ve been probably 70% funny memes and 30% politics. There’s just so much happening right now! I suspect that will swing back as we settle into whatever the new normal is. But it’s good information for me to consider – thanks for your thoughts!

  29. some dude*

    Social media exists to stoke outrage, and has contributed greatly to the current state of our country. All of the major social media companies are bending the knee to trump. It is not worth a real-life opportunity for a job to yell at dumb people online. I don’t think it is worth it, and your mental health will improve greatly if you are no longer engaging as much online. For real. You aren’t fighting fascism by telling a MAGA truther that Russia in fact invaded Ukraine. Making phone calls to your rep is 100 times more impactful.

    1. Derivative Poster*

      Agree. Zuckerberg et al. donated to and attended the inauguration. If your anti-Trump posts on their platforms enrich them, are you taking a stand against the administration or just allowing its enablers to monetize your engagement?

    3. OP*

      That’s an interesting perspective. I do call my Congresspeople a couple times a week, although now that senators’ voicemails are fielding 1000 calls per minute (versus their usually 30), I’m not sure how much good it is doing. But I will keep at it! The people that have interacted with my posts online in disagreement have been right-leaning people who I know and see in my real life and who I have maintained a friendly relationship with even after their comments. Sometimes, it’s people from my earlier schooling years. So far, no one is responding abusively, just saying things like, “Where I live / in my lifetime, I see a different perspective on how that will likely play out, and here’s what it is.” I find that rewarding in some way, and I think it does sometimes move the needle just a little, to find we have more in common than one would think. What are your thoughts if that’s who I’m mainly interacting with?

      1. Sarah*

        Just to say OP I think you sound very smart and considered, both in how you’re interacting with and using social media and how you are responding to comments here. Sending good thoughts your way!

  30. Edam*

    As Miss Manners said recently, “First,you should understand that your opinions are not great truths, but—well, just your opinions.”

    1. Honey Badger*

      Exactly. And social media post can only harm you in my opinion. Professionally, I don’t think they ever help you. Unless you’re working for a very political group.

  31. JMC*

    I freely post my political opinions, we have to spread awareness of what is going on this the US right now. It’s turning into a dictatorship (although a lot is being blocked fortunately) and I do not care what any employer thinks. I am not hiding my opinion, that’s how you oppress people. That being said my facebook is locked down for privacy, but I am posting on LinkedIn and others freely. Don’t like it don’t care.

  33. tea fish*

    My existence as a non-white, non-Christian, non-straight person is inherently political in the eyes of the current US authori-fascist regime, and keeping quiet about it on social media won’t change that. The thought of all the queer folks I know clamming up and disappearing from sight (leaving only “Trump approved” identities to speak in the social media public square) is awful. It’s terrible to have to choose between ‘look after yourself and your future prospects’ and ‘speak up to remind folks that you exist and current political policies are actively harmful to you.’ Seeing so many corporations eager to kowtow to bigotry is also pretty fucking scary.

    With that said, I personally think it’s worth weeding out employers who are going to object to what you’ve posted, especially if you generally take an even-handed approach to political topics. Location and chosen career play into how feasible that is, of course, but there’s definitely something to be said about self selecting for a workplace that isn’t jumping at the opportunity for government-encouraged discrimination.

  34. Honey badger*

    What does engaging in social media about politics really due to benefit you? All that can really do is harm you in the long run, professionally. If you’re going to do it create a separate account that has nothing to do with your true identity. You aren’t going to change anybody’s mind about their stance. And yes, prospective employers are going to check your social media. If they see you as argumentative, it looks bad on you.

    2. jeyne*

      imo, it’s not necessarily all about how something is helping me personally – i think that people’s focus on what they think will help them rather than the broader community is part of why we’re in the situation we’re in in the first place.

    3. OP*

      I haven’t posted with a mind for helping myself, per se, although I mostly comment on specific policies that affect my field and so in some way harm people I care about, and in a longterm way may harm me (e.g. by leading to funding cuts to research I think matters and might do myself some day). I have my privacy settings set to friends only. I have a politically diverse friend network and live in a swing state, so I guess my goal has been to increase awareness among my network about what is happening, especially for people who are existing in a different media bubble than mine, and to offer a perspective from my own life and experience. I have had a couple of productive conversations come out of it – most of the people who comment are people I know and see regularly in real life, such as fellow church members whose political leanings differ from mine but who I still know well and care about. Perhaps that clarifies my thinking a bit. Certainly I am not expecting it to help my career in any direct way!

    4. Unpleased*

      Wow it really depends. The primary social media I have used since the election is LinkedIn. There’s so much pro-DEI and resistor content by people who are actually highly accomplished in their fields, including senior leaders in private industry and academia there. It’s been super uplifting to see so many people supporting each other—including sharing profiles from people laid off recently.

      It’s just so important to recognize the really very basic fact that every platform is not the same and does not serve the same function.

  35. Gh0st*

    To the point that there are other things that are better to do than post on social media – true, but posting DOES have an impact. Sure, a single post isn’t going to change the world, but multiple posts by many people over time can (like any sort of great change- it’s little by little). Posting is also something that’s reasonably accessible, so it’s an easy way to begin taking action.

    As a trans person, it has a great personal impact when I see people speak out online about the current administration and movement towards authoritarianism. To those of you who have yet to be in the crosshairs, know that it’s unimaginably terrifying. So, seeing people speak up- whether that be for LGBTQ issues, for immigrants, for racial equity, for Gaza, etc.- it helps me. It gives me hope that we can survive this, because there are people out there who already understand what is happening and are saying that they’re not okay with it.

    Thank you to everyone who’s doing literally anything else to help, and to those of you who aren’t, please reconsider. The more we unite, the better we fight.

    1. LBD*

      I am sorry that you are in this position. As I am not American, my voice doesn’t have the same weight as a US citizen’s voice, but I see what is happening, and I am making sure that my voice is heard where it can be. Hang on, I care about you. Internet hugs (if you want them) from an internet stranger.

  36. WillowSunstar*

    For sure, I wouldn’t trust that anything on X would remain private. Zuck also attended the inauguration, so FB is potentially dicey now as well. At this point, I only talk about it with my friends who I know agree with me, but am also searching for a job. My current company has a long-standing policy that we can’t post about anything controversial on our social media with our real names on them.

    1. Banana Pyjamas*

      FB is trash. The clan-with-a-k had a night-night ride in northern Indiana on February 15, 2025. My first post was a stay-safe in area code 219 and have a safety plan. Members from the following states will be here. FB removed the post, and I got 30 days of restrictions.

      I made a second post telling people to call their reps to demand the chapters organizing be declared terrorist organizations, and call the FBI if they witness the night-night ride. That post was almost certainly shadow banned. The first post got quite a bit of attention and shares before being removed, the second post got nothing.

  37. Bookworm*

    OP: As someone who has done basic vetting for prospective hires, possible board members, etc. it will vary. It is probably safer to NOT post about politics in social media (regardless of what the future holds, sometimes the complete absence can be considered a plus).

    If you do end up at a think tank, you may want to consider whether you have on-topic posts (like, say, maintaining llama conservation and rescue efforts and highlighting developments in the field, etc.). Your organization may or many not want you to be active on social media. They may not care at all, especially if include a disclaimer like “Views of my own, not of the Society of Llama Rescuers” or “Personal account, see work-related posts over at Dr. Llama No Drama account”

    From my experience, (although did not vet for academia, think tanks, etc.), we looked for “outrageous” things such as hateful language, threats of violence, etc. because our work was very political. And guess what? Sometimes that language does NOT necessarily exclude you from a job (just see, as you mentioned, the current administration but I found this is even so in the private sector). This may not always be so (as it wasn’t before!). And sometimes on the flip side, some people can get overly sensitive about social media posts, too.

    I don’t know if this is helpful in any way but I hope it might give you a little insight for what a prospective hiring organization might be looking for if they are doing their due diligence on candidates. Good luck!

  38. Brain the Brian*

    I work for an organization that receives about half of our funding in federal grants. To be really frank about it: if you feel that you need to post about politics on social media, limit yourself to facts, and try your absolute best to leave your opinion out of it. Or just say “Interesting read” when re-sharing links and leave it at that.

    The people running the federal government right now are looking for any excuse to impound grant / contract funding from individuals and organizations they don’t like (and sometimes even organizations that happen to employ individuals they don’t like) and to bypass Congress completely as they withhold funds. This is happening both inside government (see USAID and the U.S. Institute of Peace as examples of federal agencies / institutes that are being shuttered because the current administration thinks too many of their employees disagree with the worldviews held by the President and his most prominent advisors) and to organizations that work with the government (see attempts to change NIH grant reimbursement rules, holds on payments for active State Department grants, etc.). This is to say nothing of the funding environment that will exist if the administration gets their way in the present appropriations debates in Congress: many fewer federal dollars available in the first place, with preference given to organizations and individuals who agree with the President’s views.

    A lot of career leaders inside and outside government will see a highly visible political life online as a liability in a future employee. It sucks; it’s undemocratic and the result of probably- illegal moves by the administration; but it’s reality. If you can steer yourself to a career track not dependent on federal funding, I strongly advise you to do that.

      1. Brain the Brian*

        Of course. I’m always happy to share when I have enough knowledge to do so.

        I suppose it also bears mentioning that my employer is pretty actively discouraging employees from calling our Congresspeople about anything right now. Although it’s not technically illegal for us to express our free speech rights by calling our elected representatives with concerns, and it’s not legally prohibited lobbying for us to call as individuals as long as we are not doing so *on behalf of* our company (and we make that clear if we’re asked), most of our senior leadership thinks it’s too risky in this environment. They feel that the current administration would gladly cross-reference names and addresses of people who called their Congresspeople against employment data — both publicly available and contained in the sensitive IRS and SSA databases that the administration is known to be accessing in unusual ways — to make decisions about withholding federal funds from organizations with employees who have expressed concern with administration policies. It makes me sick to my stomach to think about how bad it really is.

        1. OP*

          That’s interesting. I have not heard any instruction like that coming out of academia where I am, and we get a LOT of government funding! They have just given us a reminder that we are not allowed to call on behalf of the organization, only as private citizens, and I never mention my organization’s name when I do call. Given that senators were recently receiving 1000 calls a minute (compared to their usual 30), I doubt they have time to sort through their constituents at that level. But I guess you never know.

          1. Brain the Brian*

            The fear is AI programs that will do the sorting and cross-referencing much faster than humans can. Leadership where I work is terrified — perhaps rightly so, perhaps not. We hope the latter but have to plan for the former.

            1. OP*

              That’s interesting. I personally call my Congresspeople regularly. I am always polite and leave messages like, “I’m calling to express my opinion that NIH funding should not be cut. Our state brings in $X million that we could lose. It funds my job and many other folks’ jobs in our state and is good for our country because of X scientific advances that we really need. Thank you.” Or, “Hi, I’m calling to let you know I’m very concerned about the way USAID funding has been cut so suddenly without a strategic plan in place for individuals and governments who rely on that aid for food and medicine to make alternate arrangements. Please pass legislation in Congress that is sensible and protects people from egregious harm.” I guess I would rather take the small risk of being punished for doing what I think is right (and in a way that is legal and respectful) than not do what I think is right. And if those voicemails become something I get punished for, at that point I’d have to say we’re in authoritarian territory, and in which case I think it’s not always clear what the right thing to do is – it depends exactly what is going on, and at the end of the day we all have to sit with our own consciences. Life is full of hard trade offs and lots of unknowns for sure!

      2. AnonForThis*

        Yeah. And in Britain; publicly disagreeing with anti-LGBTQ activists can get you sued. And in the UK, truth is no defence against allegations of defamation. I think the widespread perception of Britain as transphobic is that most people literally *cannot afford* to call bigots what they are.

  39. Coin_Operated*

    As an out queer person, I’d have way bigger problems if my boss saw my political posts on social media, as most of it is oriented towards lgbtq rights, and if any company I work for has a problem with that, well I probably wouldn’t be able to work for them anyways, and 2, i’d be in too much trouble calling out their homophobic b.s.

  40. ByteMeGal*

    I can’t fathom having my social media profiles public. Who does that in this day? Always have them locked down.

    Facebook forced my profile to be verified unfortunately but I used to have it under a fake name and it’s always been friends only. I’ve never let it be public.

  41. Anon for this one because politics*

    I had to lock down my socials after I had a coworker disagree with me on a basic human rights issue. I was able to keep my job but it was a rough six months. And honestly the only reason I kept my job was due to my years of working there- had I only been at the job six months or a year I think I would have been fired because in the one particular human rights issue they took umbrage to, there is only one “correct” opinion to have and it is easy to throw baseless “moral” accusations against anyone who stands up for the underdog.

    Sometimes it isn’t just bosses or hiring or company policy or culture. You can sometimes have a coworker decide they don’t like your “politics” and fabricate stories to HR about how “unsafe” they feel because we were on different sides of what essentially boils down to human rights.

    I am very much now no political talk at work and locked down socials. If coworkers ask, I don’t have social media.

    1. OP*

      Wow, that’s intense! I too have not talked politics at work. However, as a student, I now have more flexibility than ever before (although I try to use that wisely).

  42. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

    I heavily edit my Facebook posts before they go up – pretty much everything is friends locked and anything that is a rant is excluded from the eyes of my parents and in-laws because they’re over 70 and it would really worry them (and they’ve got enough worries).

    So if you knew my real name the most you’d find on a search is my rainbow frame, couple of technology jokes and a few cat pictures.

    I’m admittedly biased because I’ve worked IT for decades and have had a stalker so I tend toward the paranoid.

  43. AnonForThis*

    Potential employers will 100% check your social media and it may cost you job opportunities. And sadly, nowadays, objecting to bigotry or criticising the government can definitely affect your employment prospects, in both the UK and America.

    Even in academia, freedom of speech is an unevenly applied privilege. For most people who have to work for a living, it simply does not exist.

  44. AnonForThis*

    A recent example. A woman recently won a tribunal for unfair dismissal. She (accurately) described an anti-LGBTQ group as a hate group and said that she was an ally because she had experienced racism. The Arts Council of England forced her to resign, because she had offended a handful of heterosexual, transphobic colleagues.

    The judge still described her comments as ‘ill informed’ and ‘nasty’. This is a world where a woman of colour, working as a *diversity officer*, can be fired for disagreeing with colleagues who hate LGBTQ people.

  45. StarTrek Nutcase*

    As someone who has never identified with either party and strictly focuses on each issue, I find it ironic that when the left was in power so-called “cancel” culture was used against those with opposing views. But now that the right is in power, there is shock & outrage that again cancel culture is or will be used against those with opposing views. Cancel culture, or whatever it’s called or form it takes, at best serves to only temporarily stifle – not change – opposing views, and at worse lasting hatred and potentially violence.

    If only we could all just respect each other’s right to their opinion – not THE opinion, but right to have one. Don’t want to socialize, engage with, or work for those with opposing views then don’t. And don’t get me wrong – there’s a huge difference between words and actions/violence. Civil discourse at least has the potential for changing opinions, violence simply causes entrenchment and hatred.

    2. Cranky Old Bat*

      Cancel culture is just another name for “things we don’t like” or “things that threaten our way of life.” It’s not new.

    3. AnonForThis*

      The only reason R Kelly is in prison right now is ‘cancel culture’.

      In addition, the right wing has been weaponising ‘cancel culture’ for centuries. The right wing barred minorities from even getting to speak – yet have the nerve to whinge about cancel culture when people, even politely, ask them to stop hurting other people.

      Left wing people on social media using their very limited power to criticise people who are out of their reach doesn’t even remotely compare.

      Sure, it can go too far. But it’s fascinating to me that certain people will classify a gay teenager criticising a celebrity as ‘cancel culture’, whilst remaining strangely quiet about right wing activists inciting actual violence – for example Libs of TikTok.

      Oh and that ‘bloodless revolution’ myth is very silly and ahistorical. Every single social change has involved violence. From the civil rights movement to the suffragettes to LGBTQ rights. Every single one.

  46. ijustworkhere*

    I appreciate Allison’s response to this question. I work in a public position, and I have made the decision not to post anything political on my social media. That’s because my role requires me to work with everyone, regardless of their political persuasions, and I don’t want to do anything that hampers my ability to be both trusted and effective in the work I do.

    I’m not going to buy into the current thinking at top levels that one’s political persuasions should be a factor in whether they deserve services or not. And I don’t want the people I serve to think my political persuasions determine whether I am competent or not.

    Before we had social media, we had plenty of political activism. There are many other ways I can support causes and perspectives that align with my own.

  47. merida*

    The hard thing about the social media dilemma is that everyone defines what is political differently. I think it’s best to assume that if you have social media *at all* anything you post, no matter how benign and non-politics related it feels to you, could be fair game to be offensive to a future employer.

    For example – is posting “I voted!” during election season (without saying anything else or implying who you voted for) a political post or an acceptable post? Two people will see it two different ways. Last fall I accidently started an argument at an in-person friend gathering by answering the question of “how was your weekend?” with “it was good, I voted early at the polls and then got a lot of stuff done around the house.” It was my honest, though not very interesting, answer with zero subtext intended. I honestly wasn’t meaning to talk politics and I certainly didn’t intend to say anything controversial. But someone responded that early voting is the main cause of fraud so I’m part of the problem and other people agreed, and when I tried to politly disengage they said that I shouldn’t have brought it up if I didn’t want to talk about it. Social media is the same – not everything will land the way we intended because we can’t accurately predict what everyone will deem as controversial or even political. The best way to avoid issues with future employers is to not have an online footprint at all.

    1. Jake*

      Sounds like you were with my father.

      Somehow my sister mentioning that she was struggling with her high school Spanish class at the dinner table in response to, “how was school” could be warped into a rant about how important curtailing illegal immigration is.

  48. Jake*

    The risk varies based on a few factors:

    -Are you using social media sites that already have a lot of political content? Posting politics on X/Bluesky is much different than posting it on LinkedIN.

    -Is anything you say incendiary? Not just in tone, but in actual topics too? No matter how respectful your tone is on certain items, it will rub some people the wrong way. Things like abortion are much touchier than things like tax rates.

    -Do you actually mind being selected out of jobs where your social media posts matter? As active and engaged as you sound, I’d argue that the risk is pretty small since you probably won’t be happy long term somewhere that cares what you post on social media.

    All that being said, the risk exists. We are a local construction company, and our VP of HR absolutely flags heavy political posters for the hiring managers. It doesn’t mean no hire, but it means that the hiring manager is aware, and they are accounting for it in their evaluations.

  49. Echo*

    The calculus is probably different in highly public roles, but I think generally what employers are screening for in social media posts would be things like:
    -Showing bad judgment about your job, like trash-talking your boss or sharing info that might be sensitive
    -Posts about topics that are “not safe for work”, like sexual, drug-related, or violent images (and sadly, I’d assume a very puritanical view of what counts as ‘sex and drugs’. A photo of you at your friend’s bachelorette bar crawl or info about your upcoming rope bondage safety workshop are probably still too much for a lot of US employers. It is what it is.)
    -Outright cruelty, like posting photos of people to mock their bodies

    I personally wouldn’t worry too much about the types of content discussed here, at least at this current time and in this current political situation. But again, I’m in a corporate role that isn’t highly public (I do things like presenting at conferences and writing publicly available articles under my name but that’s about it).

  50. raincoaster*

    Ha! I lost a booking because I wore my Eat The Rich tee shirt to the interview… and they were The Rich. That’s on me. Dunno what I was thinking that day!

  51. Jasmine Clark*

    OP, I want to thank you for standing up for Ukraine! I have two friends there (and even before I had those friends, I still cared a lot about Ukraine). So it always means a lot to me whenever someone says or does anything that helps Ukraine. I encourage everyone here, please speak up. Say something. Do something. There are so many false narratives being spread right now and this is the time to say something.

    I used to post more often about politics on Facebook. Then eventually I started doing it much less because I feel like it’s pointless most of the time, because it just leads to arguments. As Alison said, there are other ways to stand up for what’s right. However, I have posted multiple times on FB about Ukraine. So I made an exception.

    I think it’s okay to publicly post about certain topics you REALLY care about, with your name attached. Why is this okay? Because if someone doesn’t want to hire you because of that, that’s not someone you want to work for anyway.

    That said, I don’t think it’s wise to post about a bunch of political topics. Not that that’s what you’re doing, but I’m just saying that I think it’s better to avoid most political talk on social media sites (that have your name on them)… except a very limited number of issues you really care about. And I think that makes political posts more effective. If people can see you rarely talk about politics except for one or two issues, they’ll understand the importance of those issues.

    (By the way, if anyone wants to know how to help Ukraine, check out UNITED24, which is the official fundraising platform of the Ukrainian gov’t. They create projects that save lives of soldiers and civilians, so it’s a way you can make a huge impact! You can sign up for their email newsletter to keep up with projects.)

    1. OP*

      Thanks for your perspective. That’s a good point to focus energy on one or two specific topics that really matter. That’s mostly health for me, but I made an exception for the Ukraine misinformation. There are also a few extremely hot button culture war type topics where I keep my opinions to myself entirely.

Comments are closed.