Aleksandar Hummel's BlogBusiness as Usual
In my previous post I discussed artificial consciousness and censorship I encountered on Reddit:
The Wall of Dissonance [ https://haleksandar.wordpress.com/2026/04/25/the-wall-of-dissonance/ ]
I note that I hadn’t expected to be blogging this much since returning, but I have again run into censorship on this platform regarding a topic I think is equally worthy of public interest. Posting the below text I again got instantly banned – quietly without any explanation.
The question is of widely spread discrimination against people with gaps on their resumes in the UK jobs marked, discussed here.
I find it astonishing that not one person in the thread is able to identify “their application will go straight to the bin” as, in fact, discrimination against a group. There are surely no sour grapes in this country, said the well subscribed to mainstream theories. Surely we should interpret the law as-is not as it should be when making our moral judgement. And I bet some of them passed philosophy too. When a society constantly bends the truth, bends knowledge through education and media, when it steers them toward conclusions benefitting some over others, then dissonance is an outcome no one can be surprised with – as well as, I suppose, the mindset producing it. Alas, let’s not forget this is going on during a so-called “Labour” government.
My banned and deleted opinion follows as posted, with the addition of a footnote.
Reading through the discussions below l fully stick with my original opinion, being that no one can convince me (of the falsity) that a career gap construes 100% of one’s qualification for a role, not even 50%. Clearly someone with a gap can have more relevant experience and expertise/skills. In part it can come down to the OP’s advice to “keep your sh*ty job.” Less skilled, more mediocre workers are more likely to take that advice while higher performers are more likely to tell their employers to shove it. So, you can think of the policy as an implicit preference of the hiring managers to not hire disruptors who can upset their pool of idle complacency. The question is whether that is legal or not and I’d argue, regardless of how we view the reasoning for the gap, that if the law already doesn’t identify the long term unemployed as a category in need of protection from discrimination then the law^1 is obviously faulty. Was it the Cameron Torries who passed it as they came into power in 2010? Oh, would that surprise me? In summary, this recruitment practice is harming the employer at the same time as it’s discriminating against a group – protected or otherwise. How come it’s around? Well, because recruitment has no idea how to scale their role. It’s because UK business is dominated by incumbents whose only concern is to maintain the status quo no matter the expense, not to say long term societal impact. There is very little objective reason for the bulk of the recruitment function not to be automated away through AI, to the benefit of both employers and prospective employees – but the British mindset is an obstacle to progress and growth.
^1 Specifically, the Equality Act of 2010 as referenced [ https://www.reddit.com/r/UKJobs/s/4CqXBbVuyx ] in the discussion.
Mojo ♻️
Hacker News
Nicolas Fränkel 🇪🇺🇺🇦🇬🇪
Alan Lewis
Brett Harper
Alanna 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
afx
Toastie
Global News National
