I'm not quite sure how to say this but I think it's all part of the "post enlightenment" behavior that's going on, where trying new things and having different thoughts is looked on as heretical.
It's not about whether ideas are good or bad (I think this idea is bad), there are now mental gymnastics about why it never even should have been considered in the first place - see the comments about how we need a filter to identify things that should never be tried. This is the same idea as people who think there are ideas that should never be questioned, or concepts we shouldn't be allowed to talk about.
(Also, as I reread many of the responses, there also seems to be a healthy dose of people just not having read and understood the concept)
Right, I feel that once the "outrage" starts in full speed, there's no way to sit down in a middle ground and talk about the idea, how it is bad, how could it be improved, etc. It's as if someone from outside the US suggests that Healthcare should be socialized (once the outrage machine is out, there's no way to have a real argument).
From my point of view (someone who has had to interview and hire people for the last 10 years) the main idea doesn't sound completely broken. Here in HN we have discussed countless times how the interview process is broken, how it sucks for everyone (both interviewer and interviewee), etc. This person is trying a completely different angle, and that's good. I am happy to give it a chance.
The way I would implement it is more like this:
1. Hiring Company defines, they would spend $X for a Mid level FullStack dev.
2. Hiring company provides SkipTheInterview $X + fee.
3. SkipTheInterview opens the Position"bounty" .
4. If a candidate wants to be hired for the position, they apply and have to get enough _backers_ to get to the $X amount.
5. Once the candidate gets enough backer money, they get hired.
6. After a "trial" period (where the candidate is paid normally as he has bin hired), SkipTheInterview gives back the bounty money to the backers *doubled*, and only keeps the fee.
It's not about whether ideas are good or bad (I think this idea is bad), there are now mental gymnastics about why it never even should have been considered in the first place - see the comments about how we need a filter to identify things that should never be tried. This is the same idea as people who think there are ideas that should never be questioned, or concepts we shouldn't be allowed to talk about.
(Also, as I reread many of the responses, there also seems to be a healthy dose of people just not having read and understood the concept)