so based on this context and some other comments, it seems like the potential crime isn't so much that they use these sources to algorithmically suggest a price or contrived vacancy, it's that their agreement enforces that any of their subscribers has to use their suggestions on price and availability, thus making it likely price fixing. correct?
genuine question here, apologies if i missed it in the article, but what's RealPage's crime in this? how is using an algorithm to set prices on apartments more criminal than using an algorithm for anything else we use algorithms for?
i'm not saying it's not criminal, i just don't think i understand what american laws they're breaking by doing this.
Anecdata, but it wasn't helpful for my company to remove this boundary. I bought into the idea based on some other articles and threads posted here recently, but when we actually widened searches and removed the requirements from the postings, it didn't really move the needle.
I'm sure there's a group out there who isn't married to one stack, or is interested in learning a new one, but it was tough for me to feel like it was worth the added complexity of effectively screening and interviewing to accommodate it.
Is the suggested approach to focus sourcing on certain stacks but be open to interviewing promising applicants who don't use them? I suppose I could see that if your technical interviews can accommodate it without much rework.
so based on this context and some other comments, it seems like the potential crime isn't so much that they use these sources to algorithmically suggest a price or contrived vacancy, it's that their agreement enforces that any of their subscribers has to use their suggestions on price and availability, thus making it likely price fixing. correct?