[elipsey]

Is access to employment is an "inane" concern? Is it moral, or legal, for employers to algorithmically exclude arbitrary classes from receiving or discovering job listings?

Consider expanding this sort of technique to monster/linkdin/glassdoor/etc so that you aren't shown job listings because it can be inferred that you are probably over 30, or Republican, for example.

It seems that ACLU wants to use this as a test case to clarify what is or isn't legal before this practice becomes a pervasive part of the employment market.

[SamReidHughes]

How is access to employment improved by making job ads more expensive?

[elipsey]

Would you care to make a more detailed argument or proposal? I'm willing, in general, to be persuaded by a good argument, but you'll have to show your work. :)

[drak0n1c]

If roofing job advertisers are forced to spend half of their budget on a demographic that objectively clicks through at a drastically lower rate, they will have to spend 2X more money to reach the same number of workers that they used to reach.

Making advertising those jobs on Facebook 2X more expensive is an incentive for those firms to revert to alternative hiring habits that are even more nepotistic, reducing overall access to employment.

[mmt]

> spend half of their budget on a demographic objectively clicks through at a drastically lower rate, they will have to spend 2X more money

This reasoning pre-supposes that only CPM-style ads are available, to the exclusion of CPC or CPA, but that seems unlikely on a platform as modern as FB.

[SamReidHughes]

Don't regulate job ads targeting at all, so that it's as cheap as possible to post a job ad and so that there are no burdens on websites that host job listings.

[p1necone]

That's not really an argument. It's just a conclusion begging for some justification.

[SamReidHughes]

The justification of maximizing people's access to job listings is very evident in what I wrote.

[p1necone]

That's a conclusion, not a justification. The very topic we are discussing is that ignoring regulation causes some classes of people to be excluded entirely from some job postings. You are arguing the opposite, which is fine - but you can't just claim that it's self evident.