3 ms·
Maybe, but it's too hard to distinguish between the jobs that were posted with intention to not be filled and jobs that were posted with intention to be filled
by kylebenzle 2y ago
Maybe, but it's too hard to distinguish between the jobs that were posted with intention to not be filled and jobs that were posted with intention to be filled but through other circumstances weren't. So the distinction is moot.
It's a lot like this website. It used to be pretty obvious which comments were trolls and which are real people but more and more the people have gotten dumber and the trolls gotten smarter so it's almost impossible to tell the difference between maliciousness and stupidity and for the rest of us it doesn't really matter one way or the other. A person wasting our time is a person wasting our time, the intentions aren't important.
- s1artibartfast 2y agodifferent is a matter of use case. The difference doesn't matter to the applicant. It probably does if you propose the death penalty for posting fake listings.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoA fine large enough to make bad job postings (genuine or not) unprofitable is fine. We don't need reducto ad absurdum here. Just make businesses put thought into their postings and not let someone who has no idea of the qualifications right them up themselves.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThere is nothing wrong with reductor ad absurdum to make a point about dependency and categories. It is the primary use case. I think there are a million practical challenges to implementing a fine. I wonder if there is enough incentives to draw employers to a verified list service.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSure there is, it's in the name. We don't need an absurd argument for a punishment that is straightforward to explain. You usually use absurdum to simplify complex topics. Or I suppose to win a presidential debate, these days.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI brought it up because people seemed genuinely confused on the idea that job listing background could matter for one person and not for another. Of course it is subjective until you introduce a context.
- Bjartr 2y ago> So the distinction is moot. From the perspective of an applicant's emotional response, sure, but it's absolutely relevant in order to have a conversation about how to solve it since the different causes may need different approaches, or may occur in sufficiently differing rates to influence which should be addressed first.
- grajaganDev 2y agoThe distinction is also moot from perspective of an individuals's time being cavalierly wasted by a large corporation.
- lazide 2y agoJust wait until you start thinking about dating. But if we’re claiming fraud, either way the intent is actually the deciding factor. You can’t commit fraud without a guilty mind (mens rea)- at least in any jurisdiction I’m aware of.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoModern dating sucks, but at least half the time there's a real human on the other side that isn't a corporation trying to sell me something. And yes, that's what audits are for. To deduce intent by investigating from within, something we could never do.
- lazide 2y agonah, fake profiles are a huge problem. depending on the site, it could easily be 1 to 5 real:fake or more.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoI did say 1 in 2 weren't bots. I wouldn't say that's great in any measure when your goal is some form of companionship.