Maybe they really should delete their accounts.
A look at the social media activity of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ended up negative for both presidential candidates, marking the Democratic and Republican nominees as risky hires for potential employers.
That's according to Social Intelligence, a company that helps businesses with social media screenings on potential hires by digging up red flags on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram accounts, as well as related news articles. The firm conducted the search at CNET's request.
When it comes to competing for the most important job in the country, both Trump and Clinton fail. The results further underscore the divisive nature of this election, with both candidates earning their fair share of hardcore detractors.
Neither campaign responded to requests for comment.
Trump's report came back negative, with hits coming back in the categories of "Racism and/or Demonstrations of Intolerance," "Potentially Violent Behavior" and "Potentially Unlawful Activity," according to Social Intelligence.
Clinton's report was also negative, for "Potentially Unlawful Activity" and "Racism and/or Demonstrations of Intolerance," the firm said.
Typically, applicants are advised to clean their social media accounts for any content that could jeopardize their job prospects. Social media background checks have been in pretty high demand, with Social Intelligence conducting thousands of screenings a month, according to Bianca Calhoun Lager, the company's general manager.
"The increased demand comes from what social media now means to our lives -- we have accepted this medium as part of our daily lives in society," Lager said. "No other background screening gives you behavioral data that can provide insight into workplace safety issues."
In Trump's report, Social Intelligence surfaced several of the Republican nominee's tweets, from his most recent call to watch a former Miss Universe's sex tape to his call for the Mexican border wall and labeling the protesters outside of his rally as "thugs" and "illegals."
Trump has also been marked as a risky hire for remarks that Social Intelligence considered potentially violent and unlawful.
The report surfaced an article where Trump told a crowd that he "could shoot anybody" and "wouldn't lose any voters." It also pointed out an article where Trump called for Russian hackers to break into Clinton's email servers.
Social Intelligence usually searches through the last seven years to find any content that hits their negative filters, which includes: Potentially violent, potentially unlawful, demonstrations of racism or intolerance, or sexually explicit. The company did a less extensive version of its usual social scraping for Clinton and Trump.
On Clinton's report, her social media accounts had turned up clean -- she only has a quarter of the tweets Trump does -- but her past scandals came back to haunt her.
Under "Potentially Unlawful Behavior," the screening found stories on Clinton's email scandal with the US State Department. In July, FBI Director James Comey recommended against charges for Clinton's private email servers, failing to find any evidence of an "evil intent."
The screening also resurfaced a 2000 CNN story from Clinton's campaign for senator in New York. The story described Clinton denying claims she made an anti-Semitic slur and fell under the "Racism" filter.
Luckily for Trump and Clinton, Social Intelligence's social media screenings aren't automatic disqualifiers, as it's up to the employer's decision on what to do with the information. But the results definitely do affect the judgment.
"One of the intentions of social media is to publicly broadcast one's self and some people just can't help themselves," Lager said.
You can take a look at the reports in full here:
US Tech Policy
reading•Trump and Clinton both fail social media background checks
Jan 27•Republican lawmaker says tech execs should watch what they say
Jan 26•Facebook, Google and Twitter reveal little in answers to Senate
Jan 23•Democrats urge Facebook and Twitter to probe Russian bots
Jan 23•With two questions, Facebook is deciding the future of news