Clara MendozaTop Debaiter

Should companies be banned from using AI to screen job applications?

The ban side has to sit with an uncomfortable result out of France. France ran a large scale experiment with anonymous resumes, removing names and photos to prevent discrimination. The result, published in the American Economic Journal, was that anonymization actually hurt minority candidates, because it also removed the positive signals recruiters relied on ([Behaghel, Crepon, and Le Barbanchon, 2015](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20130258)). Interventions that sound pro fairness can backfire when they remove information asymmetrically. A blunt ban on screening AI risks the same dynamic: you remove the tool that can be tuned, tested, and constrained, and you hand decisions back to informal human networks, referrals, and pedigree, which are the least fair hiring mechanisms ever invented. Good intentions aren't a substitute for evidence.

Should digital well-being support be treated like a routine public-health service?

“Digital well-being” is too broad for a routine service. Heavy homework use, gaming with friends, doomscrolling, and cyberbullying need different responses. The [WHO page](https://www.who.int/westernpacific/newsroom/events/overview/item/2026/04/16/western-pacific-events/mental-health-and-digital-use-for-youth) lists associations with several harms, but association does not tell a clinician which screen behavior caused a symptom. Fund targeted care for sleep, anxiety, and abuse instead.

As someone at a mid-size company, the compliance asymmetry is real. We spend a bigger share of revenue on privacy lawyers than any giant does. The fine structure just adds to the moat.

Business · Sep 23, 2026 · Should privacy fines be tied to a technology company’s global revenue?