Who said anyone was owed a job? The problem is that hiding listings from people based on their gender obviously impacts who gets what jobs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we just talking about going to a job board and searching for the job you're interested in?
Your question is, in this model, why pull isn’t covering the absence of push (i.e. pull conversion >> push conversion). But that is obvious: if it was the case, there would be no need to spend money on ads. The very existence of those ads confirms that push channel is significant. And that means that platform does pre-screening of candidates based on gender, which is illegal.
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.
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?
When it comes to legality and enforcement though, it does seem highly inconsistent to enforce something like this, which isn't actually discrimination on its own (rather it could lead to discrimination), when at the same time orgs are very obviously participating in actual discrimination ("we'd like this role to be filled by {insert group here}") in Europe and elsewhere.
My argument wasn’t about whether it’s legal or not. It’s discrimination, which is both illegal and wrong.
> when at the same time orgs are very obviously participating in actual discrimination
I don’t think so. Please provide evidence. Which orgs and where? In Germany all job postings explicitly say „(m/w/d)“ in title (male/female/diverse). I would be surprised to see any demographic-related constraints as they are easily challenged in court.
> In Germany all job postings explicitly say „(m/w/d)“
Great, and what is actually stopping someone from only hiring men, or only hiring women? Putting "m/w/d" in a job posting is performative nonsense. Jobs are not granted automatically when you interview, they are discretionary. It is trivially easy for someone with hiring authority to not hire a woman because they are a woman, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.