If you use an email provider they don't dislike however, you might go a step further and do a logic, language and mathematics automatic test.
Apparently they do these things because they have too many applicants and need random ways of filtering them out.
But if your problem is having too many applicants, shouldn't you stop spamming emails to people asking them to apply?
But what do I know, my email provider ends with .it so I am not hireable at spotify :D
Blanket rules like "do not provide feedback" exist because in a large enough org you eventually hire an idiot who will say something to a candidate that gets you sued.
Failing to initially respond to an applicant is not ghosting. It's selection.
On the other hand, the rude option of not answering harms the company's HR brand.
Moreover, candidates might prefer bland non-responses that demonstrate more savoir faire than explaining, honestly but stupidly, the reasons of a rejection.
The talent pool is not infinite, and a rejection means "we don't have a vacancy for which you are the right candidate right now", not necessarily "No way will you ever work for this company". So the core benefit of treating rejected applicants fairly, and perhaps providing them conditions under which they can re-apply ("We won't accept further applications from you in the next year, but we'd encourage you to re-apply for a suitable role after then"), and some things to work on before they could be successful in the company, then they might be an asset for the company in the future.
Likewise, companies which have a reputation for providing feedback and a polite thanks but no thanks are more likely to get applications than companies that have a reputation for ghosting.
> You can start arguing
Just have a rule that all communications with the candidate go through HR (or the person responsible for coordinating hiring overall in a smaller company), and then if they reply at all to candidates arguing, just have them be firm that under policy, the decision has been made, and can't be reviewed. It's okay to ignore further correspondence if they argue.
> these emails can go public with harm to their reputation
What's worse though, a reputation for ghosting candidates, or a reputation for privately sending transparent but polite feedback based on the interviews?
We send rejections. I haven't heard of any complaints or arguments ever
I also once offered someone to privately help them make the career switch they were trying to make but were clearly not ready for (I didn't word it like that to them). The applicant reminded me of someone in school who wasn't the technical best performer but always kept high spirits while working hard (within reason, nothing extreme, but it set a good example for... you know how most kids in group work usually perform) and they just needed a little bit of help to be a great teammate. Never heard back from that applicant :(
This is all for an IT position in Germany (though remote work in adjacent timezones is fine and more than half our employees aren't German currently; we basically hire anyone qualified who applies), perhaps it's different if you hire for different types of jobs or in other cultures
So, yeah, a can of worms. They are rare, but they sure are pungent.
if political location is required for regs/visa/tax/whatever don't tie that to applicants' geographic location
Not sending a simple "sorry, we're proceeding with other candidates" is detrimental to everyone, because without knowing if you've been rejected or not you're just incentivised to send out more applications, which doesn't really benefit anyone, including companies who will now have even more applications to sift through.
Also I've had companies ghost me after doing several what seemed like promising interviews. It's okay they decided to pick someone else, but outright ignoring at this stage is just being a dick. "Begone peasant, you're not even worth talking to".
I've also had places keep it ambiguous and send an offer nearly a year after interviewing. Game theory applies, as always.