4 ms·

It’s acceptable to reject a candidate because they’re not “a friend of a friend”, but it’s not acceptable to reject a candidate because they submitted an applic

by cj 3y ago

It’s acceptable to reject a candidate because they’re not “a friend of a friend”, but it’s not acceptable to reject a candidate because they submitted an application with an IP address from Pakistan with a VOIP phone number?

matheusmoreira 3y ago
In the first case, you're not rejecting candidates at all. Nor are you treating them like potential fraudsters.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  The result is the same, and it's the result that is the issue. If potential applicants aren't given consideration because they're not in the network, it doesn't matter that the hiring committee thinks they're innocent, or isn't technically rejecting them. It's a bad heuristic.
  - godelski 3y ago
    Be careful with your logic and framing. I explained why it was poor framing above. But the way you've (and the gp) framed it is dangerous. Swap "voip numbers" for "x skin color" and you're in clear unethical and illegal territory. But swap the attributes of the parent and you don't get this issue. If parent is x race and all their friends are also x race you're not discriminating against y race through their means because they aren't turning down based on race, it is just closer to changing the odds. The problem isn't when you change the odds (unless there's an extreme manipulation) but rather how you respond to samples from the distribution.
    - SantalBlush 3y ago
      This is wrong. You are expected to discriminate against samples from the distribution in a variety of ways, like the formatting of their resume and their work history; it only becomes unethical when you discriminate based on race, gender, etc. If you replace "voip numbers" with "x skin color", of course that would be unethical, but being able to switch phrases to make them unethical is irrelevant, because we're not discussing the unethical case. The example of networking you give has even more potential for unethical behavior than filtering voip numbers.
godelski 3y ago
> It’s acceptable to ... but it's not... Wrong framing. The parent didn't set it up as a means to filter. In your situation you have a list of applicants that you are filtering. In the parent's scenario they do not yet have applicants, they simply ask their network if there's any suggested candidates which then forms the list that they will filter from. It's as discriminatory as posting on Linkedin but not on Indeed. The discrimination would come from the counterfactual question of: supposing they posted the job listing to a larger network _and_ supposing a clearly more qualified applicant applied, would that better applicant be turned down due to nepotism. That's the difference. No one is getting upset at family businesses despite almost certainly failing the counterfactual.
15457345234 3y ago
Any thread about online scamming will include comments from a bunch of online scammers telling you that the things you can do to make their life harder are unethical.

by cj 3y ago

matheusmoreira 3y ago

In the first case, you're not rejecting candidates at all. Nor are you treating them like potential fraudsters.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SantalBlush 3y ago
The result is the same, and it's the result that is the issue. If potential applicants aren't given consideration because they're not in the network, it doesn't matter that the hiring committee thinks they're innocent, or isn't technically rejecting them. It's a bad heuristic.
- godelski 3y ago
  Be careful with your logic and framing. I explained why it was poor framing above. But the way you've (and the gp) framed it is dangerous. Swap "voip numbers" for "x skin color" and you're in clear unethical and illegal territory. But swap the attributes of the parent and you don't get this issue. If parent is x race and all their friends are also x race you're not discriminating against y race through their means because they aren't turning down based on race, it is just closer to changing the odds. The problem isn't when you change the odds (unless there's an extreme manipulation) but rather how you respond to samples from the distribution.
  - SantalBlush 3y ago
    This is wrong. You are expected to discriminate against samples from the distribution in a variety of ways, like the formatting of their resume and their work history; it only becomes unethical when you discriminate based on race, gender, etc. If you replace "voip numbers" with "x skin color", of course that would be unethical, but being able to switch phrases to make them unethical is irrelevant, because we're not discussing the unethical case. The example of networking you give has even more potential for unethical behavior than filtering voip numbers.

godelski 3y ago

> It’s acceptable to ... but it's not... Wrong framing. The parent didn't set it up as a means to filter. In your situation you have a list of applicants that you are filtering. In the parent's scenario they do not yet have applicants, they simply ask their network if there's any suggested candidates which then forms the list that they will filter from. It's as discriminatory as posting on Linkedin but not on Indeed. The discrimination would come from the counterfactual question of: supposing they posted the job listing to a larger network _and_ supposing a clearly more qualified applicant applied, would that better applicant be turned down due to nepotism. That's the difference. No one is getting upset at family businesses despite almost certainly failing the counterfactual.

15457345234 3y ago

Any thread about online scamming will include comments from a bunch of online scammers telling you that the things you can do to make their life harder are unethical.