4 ms·

Ok, let me explain in simple words. No, you cannot reduce it to „just searching the job you want“. Information asymmetry means that: 1. not everyone is aware o

Ok, let me explain in simple words. No, you cannot reduce it to „just searching the job you want“. Information asymmetry means that: 1. not everyone is aware of all the opportunities available on the market, e.g. when skillset is matching different type of the job people have not considered 2. …or where to find them, because there are many job boards and not everything even lands on them 3. …or that they should look for them at certain moment of time Push ads address all 3 problems, reaching e.g. those who are employed and not actively looking, but open to change. If a man gets that ad, but a woman not, it means that that man spent zero time to find that opportunity and woman may not even find it in active search. Effectively they pay different costs for getting a better job.

rpdillon 1y ago
It's not the complexity of the words that's causing the misunderstanding. It's getting down to ground truth about what the job searching experience is like for actual individuals that will be impacted by this legislation. So the hypothesis is that there are jobs that people will pay money to advertise for but won't place on a free job board to be found by interested parties? There also seems to be a hypothesis that someone will click on an ad for a job, even if they don't realize they have the skills for it, where they won't search for a job that they don't realize they don't have the skills for. Am I understanding? Do we have any examples to demonstrate this? All seems like an incredibly weak argument. Like, who was harmed by this? There was somebody that was a woman that wanted to be a mechanic and she couldn't because she didn't get a Facebook ad for it? That's what we're talking about, right?
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  I will have to repeat myself, because I already answered this above. The fact that paid ads for jobs exist is clear indication that „free job boards“ channel doesn’t perform well enough, so employers are ready to pay extra. Paid job ads market has not gone in first few months, it is sustainable, i.e. people continue to pay because they have satisfactory conversion. It’s already proven by market that pull+push performs better, otherwise push wouldn’t exist. If push has gender-based targeting, then it creates an advantage for a specific gender - and that’s it. I did suggest plausible mechanics of why push works, but we don’t really need to find concrete examples, neither it is possible: you cannot present things that didn’t happen. If someone didn’t see an opportunity because ads were not shown, this person is not aware of it and cannot complain.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    I understand what you're saying, and appreciate your patience. I think it boils down to the fact that I just don't see this as a problem. Some people see ads that others don't. Not all opportunities are spread equally. There's a lot of unfairness just built-in by the roll of the dice. Banning demographic targeting of Facebook job ads isn't going to be a significant contributor here, in my estimation.

rpdillon 1y ago

It's not the complexity of the words that's causing the misunderstanding. It's getting down to ground truth about what the job searching experience is like for actual individuals that will be impacted by this legislation. So the hypothesis is that there are jobs that people will pay money to advertise for but won't place on a free job board to be found by interested parties? There also seems to be a hypothesis that someone will click on an ad for a job, even if they don't realize they have the skills for it, where they won't search for a job that they don't realize they don't have the skills for. Am I understanding? Do we have any examples to demonstrate this? All seems like an incredibly weak argument. Like, who was harmed by this? There was somebody that was a woman that wanted to be a mechanic and she couldn't because she didn't get a Facebook ad for it? That's what we're talking about, right?

ivan_gammel 1y ago
I will have to repeat myself, because I already answered this above. The fact that paid ads for jobs exist is clear indication that „free job boards“ channel doesn’t perform well enough, so employers are ready to pay extra. Paid job ads market has not gone in first few months, it is sustainable, i.e. people continue to pay because they have satisfactory conversion. It’s already proven by market that pull+push performs better, otherwise push wouldn’t exist. If push has gender-based targeting, then it creates an advantage for a specific gender - and that’s it. I did suggest plausible mechanics of why push works, but we don’t really need to find concrete examples, neither it is possible: you cannot present things that didn’t happen. If someone didn’t see an opportunity because ads were not shown, this person is not aware of it and cannot complain.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  I understand what you're saying, and appreciate your patience. I think it boils down to the fact that I just don't see this as a problem. Some people see ads that others don't. Not all opportunities are spread equally. There's a lot of unfairness just built-in by the roll of the dice. Banning demographic targeting of Facebook job ads isn't going to be a significant contributor here, in my estimation.