Public profile matching
Use candidate-supplied identifiers to reduce the risk of attributing a public profile or post to the wrong person.
Digital footprint screening
Social Media Checks for Australian Organisations
Review publicly available online information through a structured, consent-based process using candidate-supplied profiles, account-level review and evidence-backed findings.
Social Media Check Demo data · Illustration
01 / Candidate
Choose your profiles
Select the online profiles or websites you use.
- LinkedIn(selected)
- X / Twitter
- TikTok
- YouTube
- GitHub
- Personal website
Select profiles → Add details → Review + consent
- Public online footprint review
- Role and risk aligned screening
- Secure candidate workflow
- Clear report for decision makers
Public-source screening with human context
Structured social media checks with candidate consent and evidence-backed review
A professional social media check should focus on publicly available, role-relevant information and avoid private or protected personal information. AuthNTick structures the search and report so authorised reviewers can assess context rather than rely on a raw list of posts.
Where this check can fit
Public-facing, trust-sensitive or senior leadership appointments
Roles with documented reputation, safety or conduct requirements
Consistent screening where online searches are already part of policy
Reviewing public professional profiles for material résumé inconsistencies
Review scope
What the public-source review records
A structured result gives authorised reviewers the source, context and role relevance needed for a fair assessment.
Role-relevant public material
Review accessible online content against the employer’s documented role requirements and screening purpose.
Source and context
Record the public source and enough surrounding context for an authorised reviewer to understand what was found.
Human-readable findings
Present potentially relevant results for review without turning an online search into an automated hiring decision.
Available sources
What AuthNTick reviews
Depending on candidate-provided information and the agreed screening scope, AuthNTick may review publicly available or voluntarily provided information from these sources. Not every source will be available or reviewed for every check.
Facebook · Instagram · LinkedIn · X / Twitter · TikTok · YouTube · Reddit · Snapchat · Threads · GitHub · Personal websites and blogs · Other relevant public online profiles
Responsible workflow
How an AuthNTick Social Media Check works
Step 1
Candidate identifies their profiles
The candidate selects the social media accounts and online profiles they use, such as LinkedIn, Facebook or Instagram. Candidate-supplied profiles help identify the correct accounts and reduce the risk of attributing another person’s activity to the candidate.
Step 2
Candidate provides account details
For each selected profile, the candidate provides a profile URL, display name, normal account visibility and ownership confirmation. Visibility options are Public, Private, Partially public and Not sure. Alternate usernames or notes provide extra context; notes are required when selecting Other.
Step 3
Candidate reviews and consents
The candidate reviews their supplied profiles and provides consent before the check begins. Only publicly available information and information voluntarily provided is reviewed. We do not request passwords, bypass privacy settings, require private accounts to be made public or access private or restricted accounts.
Step 4
Accounts are reviewed individually
Each supplied account is reviewed separately. Clear means no relevant findings were identified from the information reviewed. Concern means a potentially relevant finding is recorded for further review. Unable to review means the account is private, inaccessible or has insufficient public information. Privacy alone is not an adverse finding.
Step 5
Profile ownership confidence is assessed
Where appropriate, the reviewer records confidence that the profile belongs to the candidate, such as Likely match. Similar names, incomplete profiles, parody or impersonation accounts, old accounts and ambiguous identifiers can make attribution uncertain.
Step 6
Findings are documented with evidence
The reviewer records potentially relevant findings, the platform, ownership confidence, supporting evidence and relevant notes. Evidence preserves context for authorised human review rather than producing an unexplained automated score.
Step 7
A structured result is provided
The requesting organisation receives relevant findings and review limitations. AuthNTick provides screening information for authorised review. The organisation remains responsible for considering the information in context and making any employment or engagement decision.
Candidate details
What candidates provide
Candidate-supplied profile information helps identify the correct accounts and reduces the risk of reviewing an unrelated person’s online presence.
- Profile URL
- Display name / username
- Account visibility
- Account ownership confirmation
- Optional alternate usernames or notes (notes required for Other)
- Consent
We don’t ask candidates for passwords, ask them to unlock private accounts or require them to change their privacy settings.
Social Media Check Demo data · Illustration
02 / Candidate details
- Profile URL
- https://linkedin.com/in/jordan-example
- Display name
- Jordan Example
- Who can normally view this account?
- Public (selected)PrivatePartially publicNot sure
- Does this account belong to you?
- Yes (selected) No
I consent to AuthNTick conducting this Social Media / Online Presence Check.
Account-level review
Each account has its own review
Clear
No relevant findings identified from the information reviewed.
Concern
A potentially relevant finding is recorded for further review.
Unable to review
Private, inaccessible or insufficient public information.
Each account is assessed separately. A private or inaccessible account is a limitation of the review and is not automatically an adverse finding.
Ownership before findings
Reduce the risk of mistaken identity
A name alone is not enough to reliably attribute an online profile to a candidate. AuthNTick uses candidate-supplied profile information and contextual indicators to help assess whether an account is likely to belong to the person being screened.
Candidate-supplied URLs, display names, usernames, contextual profile information and ownership confirmation inform reviewer confidence. Similar names, old or incomplete profiles, parody accounts and impersonation can make attribution uncertain. A likely match does not establish identity certainty.
Potentially relevant findings are documented with supporting evidence and notes to preserve context for authorised human review. The structured result includes findings and limitations; the requesting organisation makes any employment or engagement decision.
Social Media Check Demo data · Illustration
03 / Reviewer assessment
- ClearNo relevant findings
- Concern(selected)Record a finding
- Unable to reviewPrivate or insufficient
- Ownership confidence
- Likely match
- What did you find?
- Publicly available content identified for contextual review.
- Supporting evidence
- Screenshot attached · Demo evidence
Privacy boundaries
Public information, clear boundaries
We may review
Within the agreed screening purpose:
- Candidate-supplied profiles
- Publicly accessible posts and comments
- Public videos and images
- Professional profiles
- Public webpages and blogs
- Other relevant publicly accessible material
We do not
Private accounts remain private:
- Request social media passwords
- Ask candidates to make private accounts public
- Access private messages
- Bypass privacy controls
- Use fake accounts or impersonate another person
- Attempt to access private or restricted content
- Treat a private account as an adverse finding by itself
Information voluntarily provided by the candidate may be considered where lawful and relevant. Read the Screening Services Terms and Privacy Policy for how screening information is handled.
AS 4811:2022
Designed to support risk-based workforce screening
AuthNTick’s Social Media Check provides a structured, consent-based and evidence-recorded process that can form part of an organisation’s AS 4811:2022-aligned workforce screening framework where an online presence review is justified by the risks and requirements of the role.
AS 4811:2022 does not require a social media check for every worker or role. This is not a claim of certification. The organisation determines a proportionate screening scope.
Fair decisions
Privacy, fairness and interpretation limits
Public content can be incomplete or misleading. These boundaries keep the result proportionate and human-reviewed.
1
The check does not request social media passwords, enter private groups or bypass account privacy settings.
2
Protected attributes and lawful private conduct should not be treated as evidence of role suitability.
3
Public content can be outdated, satirical, manipulated or incorrectly attributed, so context and identity matching matter.
4
A finding should be reviewed by a person and, where it may affect a decision, the candidate should have a fair opportunity to respond.
Review guidance
Set the screening rules before searching
A documented scope helps keep the review proportionate and prevents an online search from drifting into irrelevant personal information. The employer should be able to explain why each category of public material is connected to a genuine responsibility or risk of the role.
- Define the public sources, date range and role-related behaviours that may be reviewed, along with subjects that reviewers must disregard.
- Apply the same written criteria to candidates being considered for comparable positions and restrict the report to authorised decision makers.
- Exclude protected attributes and lawful personal opinions that have no demonstrated connection to the job, even when they are visible online.
- Record candidate consent and explain the screening purpose so the process is transparent rather than an undisclosed search by an individual manager.
Review guidance
Test identity, authenticity and context
Public online material is easy to misattribute or misunderstand. Similar names, parody accounts, reposted content and old material can all create a misleading impression, so potentially relevant findings need a careful human assessment before they influence a decision.
- Match more than a name by using candidate-supplied identifiers and contextual details, and mark uncertain profile attribution as unresolved.
- Preserve the source, date and surrounding context instead of reporting an isolated screenshot or phrase that changes meaning when separated from the original post.
- Consider whether material is authentic, current, role-relevant and proportionate, including whether it reflects the candidate’s own conduct or merely content posted by somebody else.
- When a finding could materially affect employment, provide a fair opportunity for the candidate to explain mistaken identity, altered content or missing context before a final decision.
Continue exploring
Build the right screening workflow
Social media background check guide
understand public-source scope, fairness and Australian hiring considerations.
ExploreProfessional reference checks
compare public online findings with structured role-relevant referee evidence.
ExploreWorkforce screening platform
manage authorised screening services in a consistent business workflow.
ExploreRequest a background screening quote
discuss whether public-source screening is proportionate for the role.
ExploreFrequently asked questions
What is a social media background check?
A social media background check reviews publicly available or voluntarily provided online information within an agreed screening scope. AuthNTick uses candidate-supplied profiles, consent, account-level review and documented findings relevant to the role.
What social media platforms can be reviewed?
Depending on candidate-provided details, availability and the agreed scope, sources may include Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X / Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, GitHub, personal websites or blogs and other public profiles. Not every source is available or reviewed for every check.
Does AuthNTick access private accounts?
No. AuthNTick does not access private accounts or messages, bypass privacy controls, use fake accounts or impersonate anyone. Information voluntarily provided by the candidate may be considered where lawful and relevant to the screening purpose.
Do candidates need to provide passwords?
No. AuthNTick does not request social media passwords.
Does a candidate have to make a private account public?
No. Candidates are not required to unlock private accounts or change their privacy settings.
What happens if an account is private?
An account may be recorded as Unable to review because it is private, inaccessible or has insufficient public information. This is a review limitation and is not automatically an adverse finding.
How does AuthNTick know a profile belongs to the candidate?
Candidate-supplied URLs, display names, usernames, ownership confirmation and contextual profile information help the reviewer assess ownership confidence. A Likely match is not a guarantee of identity; uncertain attribution must be considered in context.
What happens when a concern is identified?
The reviewer documents the potentially relevant finding and supporting evidence for authorised human review. Context and ownership confidence matter, and the candidate may be asked to clarify ownership, accuracy or context.
Does AuthNTick automatically decide whether to hire someone?
No. AuthNTick supplies screening information. The requesting organisation remains responsible for considering the information in context and making any employment or engagement decision.
Are social media checks required by AS 4811:2022?
No. AS 4811:2022 does not require a social media check for every worker or role. An online presence review may form part of a risk-based workforce screening framework where justified by the role. This is not a certification claim.
Can a social media check find everything online?
No. It is a point-in-time review of available information within the agreed scope. Private, deleted, inaccessible or unidentified material may limit the review.
Is every controversial post relevant to employment?
No. Protected attributes, political or religious beliefs and lawful personal opinions are not by themselves adverse findings. Review must focus on the screening purpose, role relevance and context.
Professional online presence screening
Add public-source screening with clear boundaries.
Request a quote and our team will guide the screening workflow.