Ask HN: Why is everyone so fake on LinkedIn?

96 points by wfinn ↗ HN
Long time HN lurker, don't ever feel that I have anything that important to add.

I go on LinkedIn and I wan't to cry. Why so much fake enthusiasm ?

Do you use LinkedIn and what are your thoughts ?

102 comments

[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 153 ms ] thread
Same reason corporate music is bad, it can't have anything meaningful or it wouldn't be work friendly. The message is I'm employable, I signal the current corporate virtues, looks at what all I'm learning, wow Jim it has really been ten years at Saber, wow the years have flown.

Say the wrong thing, canceled, not only from future employment but current.

There is nothing genuine about a corporate business lunch and this is just another location.

> Why so much fake enthusiasm ?

Lack of anonymity. Profiles on LinkedIn have more real information on them then any other platform, meaning that what you say might have real consequences to you.

Basically saying anything negative or critical might be used against you in the future of your career. (see Miranda rights)

Other platforms like reddit and Twitter don't mind anonymous accounts, which ironically invites more honest criticism and discussion, as it doesn't directly link profiles to professional careers.

It might also be true that fake enthusiasm also suffers the consequences. People who don’t like fake may unfollow and not want to associate with them in the future. But yeah, confrontation is a more risky than fake.
I see very little on LinkedIn that is outright fake. What I do see is a heavy filter put on people's experiences. But that makes sense to me - this is not a social media site - it is an online resume. Don't get fooled into thinking it is anything more or less just because they have a news feed.
Me in a position of power,

Poor schmuck who's desperate

Me showing pity on the schmuck

Schmuck uses the opportunity

Me showing LinkedIn how great I'm

As long as you don't hide the identity of the users, you won't have an honest platform. You want to see how people really think, give the anonymity and you see the true society, good or bad.
Truer, perhaps, but not true.

Anonymous posters will still try to rustle jimmies by saying something provocative.

They are a part of society nonetheless.

You know, sometimes people say something provocative in an effort to make others stop and think critically about something.

A futile effort, of course, but noble, indeed.

There are others, also, who use anonymity to make personal attacks and rude comments, but these are easy to filter.

I use it but I use it very specifically in a small set of groups around areas of interest, or to actually prevent people from going overboard on X solution (e.g. coach people to think through requirements instead of just taking any answer to "what's the best product in X software category?" at face value), rather than do product fluffing.

Conversely I used LinkedIn Learning a lot, and I like to follow certain companies of interest, but yes, there is an overabundance of "lookee lookee at my stuff, but I'm not in marketing, really!" kind of discourse.

LinkedIn is cringe levels of shameless self promotion, feel good corporate bs, and spam from recruiters. But it also has gotten me jobs and helped me keep in touch with old colleagues so I tolerate it.
When I mentor interns about how to present or interact in meetings, I always stress that if they are a stakeholder in a project that is discussed, they should be prepared to add something intelligent to a discussion about it.

“Something intelligent” isn’t pithy commentary, it is a contribution that adds some value to what is happening.

In the context of LinkedIn, you’re always selling something. Either yourself, your company/product or something else. Usually that means offering something that makes you look smart or empathetic to stay active in your extended network. Many people are very bad at it.

Personally, I post about the nonprofit organization whose board I serve on. I may get some brownie points, but mostly it’s marketing so I can try to liberate peoples money later to donate to the cause.

This sounds like spam. The need to always say something.
If you are in a working meeting and don’t speak, what’s the point?

The key is to do your homework and be prepared. That’s how some 20-year old kid gets noticed in a room full of professionals.

Obviously it needs to be role appropriate.

I don't get the idea of having to get noticed to have career success.

Meetings don't determine outcomes. In my experience, meetings have been largely wasteful. It's the actual work that determines the outcome and if this "20 year old not-a-professional kid" can get the job done they must be recognised.

We must discourage this "loud mouths at meetings" culture.

Because it's not a community, it's a marketplace. Never confuse the two.
For an eye-opening experience, explore the network of people who list themselves as recruiters for oil companies.
I love LinkedIn because it helps me stay in touch with people who I went to school with and old co-workers as I deleted my Facebook account years ago. If I didn't have LinkedIn, it would have been much harder to stay in touch with those people.

I do think that LinkedIn has a lot of low quality content so I entirely avoid the feed and use it more so as a rolodex and that alone makes it worth it for me.

I also deleted FB about a year ago. However I don't use LinkedIn to keep in touch with friends. I text them and call them. I feel like relationship with my friends improved after deleting FB. Also, number of friends reduced too. YMMV
For close friends I also stick to calling and texting them but fall back on LinkedIn for tertiary connections I had at various orgs before that I didn’t have numbers for or to seek out alma mater working in specific teams/companies.
Exactly! Besides, the real feed is the recruiters we've met along the way.
Because you have to be fake at work, and LinkedIn is basically work.
(comment deleted)
It depends on the company. I am not fake at work. And almost everybody else aren’t fake as well (with one exception). However I have worked for a company before where every single person was fake. I hated it.
I've never seen a company where people weren't required to be fake or pay a price. Unconscious bias exists everywhere. People are more likely to promote those who think the same way they do.
They do exist. However they might be rare? I definitely feel lucky working for one.
(comment deleted)
People are fake on all social media. LinkedIn content is just more narrow and commercial, so that compounds the effect and makes it seem more pronounced.
Well not everyone. There are people who treat it like Facebook and start sharing the funny links and random stuff and in some cases their political opinions and conspiracy theories.

The boring fake alternatives of everyone else are much better.

LinkedIn is basically a marketing channel. For companies' marketing team to market their products, for HR teams to market how "awesome" is to work at the company and for people to market themselves.

I am of the thought that most marketing is bullshit, hence I believe most of what you will read in LinkedIn is bullshit as well.

What about employees humble bragging about their "achievements" and fake made up stories about them doing something compassionate when they interviewed someone ?
(comment deleted)
“Please hire me.” Everyone plays along because they have to, as LinkedIn is the new resume and recruiting pipeline.
Your feed is made up of the content written by people you're connected to.

If you see only the cringe posts then you follow the wrong people. I am in marketing and so I follow lot of great growth people, content marketers, copywriters, performance folks and as I am not a deep expert in all these sub-categories of marketing I quite often find super valuable content posted by my connections. Frameworks, templates, good ideas. Stuff I can use. The competitiveness of the environment forces people to post lot of good stuff for free to get engagement, they otherwise would never share.

And in reverse if you post there too and want your content to be read and liked, then you should have only connections relevant to your content. Ie dont have HR connections and then post about coding, instead have mostly dev connections. Because LinkedIn algo tests your post by showing it to only small part of your connections, if your post about coding gets shown to HR people, nobody will like it and thus your post will end up failing the test and LinkedIn will kill its visibility.

In short. Don't blame LinkedIn, blame your managment of your connections.

I expect LinkedIn is seen as great by marketers because it's effectively a marketing platform.

There are, however, lots of people in lots of jobs who find the whole show distasteful and inauthentic. Like it's a brown-nosers convention where two-faced suckholes get to be performative. And that includes some marketing types too.

No amount of changing who you follow is going to change that fundamental quality for some.

But that's not unique to LinkedIn is it? That is every non-anonymous social platform after few years into its conception. Facebook, Instagram, even TikTok is about showing off.

I don't like it either, but its just natural. It's like complaining that sun comes up every day. You need to take it for what it is - these platforms do have some good content but, its strongly biased, its only the positive stuff. Either its positive content of low quality or positive content of high quality. That's all. If you understand that its fine.

I am not sure why some people think it could be any different. If you think its so easy to show of vulnerability then go to NY Times Square and take of your clothes and stand there naked for an hour. Or ok less dramatic version, record a YouTube video about how you're sometimes selfish person, how you sometimes cheat in your work, how you're asshole to people and post it on all your social profiles. You won't. Therefore you are part of the problem. Because you are not participating in negative, real or vulnerable content.

All these things I mentioned are human, none of us are saints and we have moments when we are little selfish or just moments when we are weak, but we don't what others to know.

If you want some honesty, you need the anonymity, 4chan, reddit, hacker news and what not. There is no way around it.

We dont expect strangers in professional setting to be extremely real, vulnerable and personal to hundreds of their colleagues, so why should it be expected from LinkedIn?

LinkedIn is shallow, but you can still get some technical information if you can get over the fact that the stories there are overblown and cherrypicked. Same as Instagram and everything tied to your name and connected to real people you know is.

> Your feed is made up of the content written by people you're connected to

This isn't true at all. Your feed is made up of content your connections interact with. Likes, comments, etc.

Since so many people interact with vapid and empty "live laugh love" style garbage like Dan Price or B Burns, it's inevitable for anyone's feed to be full of kiss-ass nonsense without hands on curation.

My question is whether those long posts people make when they change companies are about ego or if it somehow helps their career to make a big deal out of it publicly.
People are fake on linkedln because they are afraid to offend any. All there business clients and employers are on the service. If you want real people are more inclined when they are just a username or anonymous. Something I noticed through the years. Real ID means faker people.
It's because fake enthusiasm is deeply ingrained in corporate culture (at least in the US).
i have found hitting long pressing like and choosing "Insightful" (light bulb emoji) or "Curious" (hmm... emoji) on posts outside of the overton window to be a very fun way to push boundaries on linkedIn while doing nothing reprehensible per say.

if enough of us do this, we can actually extend the overton window outside of the current straightjacket and actually push toward a more free and enjoyable society.

your fellow connections will, over time, be informed of your activity; ("Bob finds this Insightful....")

worst case scenario - they might have to begrudgingly admit you find something insightful or curious that they would rather not think about;

best case scenario we start to normalize free and open discussion in the world's most sterile, bland environment (corporate)

btw, adding your favorite boundary pushing defectors as linkedIn connections is a great way to find good posts to mark "Insightful" without having to actually share the potentially upsetting content yourself

additionally, you start to build a more antifragile network, you might have to lean on some of these loudmouths if shit gets too weird in corporate

I find egregious that LinkedIn doesn't have a LMAO reaction. Does nobody laugh at corporate posts?
no angry react either -- in the Brave New World, negativity is outlawed
LinkedIn is basically a giant water-cooler where everyone can show-off. That i s the incentive, the network decided to promote.
IMO the worst is middle aged guys walking recording self-help/promotion sales selfie videos.

But what do you expect them to say?

Excited to talk at this upcoming conference --> My company just paid thousands of dollars for me to get on stage and have the audience listen to an informercial.

Excited to be named one this years people who are persons --> I spend all my time working to make partners at a Consultancy/PE/VC Bank rich, but it-least they paid to nominate me, I can show my parents! Do people still read magazines?

Or the cringy “kudos” posts calling out a coworker that helped someone out at work
> IMO the worst is middle aged guys walking recording self-help/promotion sales selfie videos.

Paging "The brutal truth about marketing" guy that records selfie videos in a suburban neighborhood. Maximum cringe.

Just yesterday someone suggested me to set up a linkedin profile, ensuring a rapid career onset.

I never thought linkedin had any value (beside being a weird phonebook). How is it these days ?

It's the recruiter's automated shotgun, in my experience.
shotgun ? you mean like a fishnet ? or a mass fire tool ?
A mass fire fishnet tool.

Either they catch a promising candidate. Or they eliminate them for failing the skills checklist.

The greatest thing linkedin does for me is help with filling out job applications.
I traditionally link up with people as they depart the project.

LinkedIn is a honking big office. Relationships span the globe at superficial depth.

Just doubled my pay. Bring on the recruiter spam.
It's a nice channel to get recruiter contacts. Want a new job? Ping a recruiter who pinged you months ago.
Literally owe my career, professional network and opportunities I would have never found to Linkedin. It is worth it's weight in gold.
A while back I was in the office at a Fortune 500 company. I was getting in the elevator to go home around 7:00 PM, which is later than I would've liked. A few other people boarded the elevator too, and we exchanged knowing nods and grumbled about late nights, the excessive workload, and bad weather.

The next floor, our CEO got on. Everyone's attitude shifted 180 degrees. We all had smiling, perky, and enthusiastic. I don't subscribe to the deification of our executives, but in that moment, I certainly acted like I did.

Anyway, on LinkedIn, people act like their current or next CEO is reading their posts. Because they might be.

I agree that it's fake, and I find my personal LinkedIn newsfeed to be extremely unpleasant - and more or less useless - to read. But when push comes to shove, the next time I'm around the CEO, I know I'll have the same fake enthusiasm.

To me that sounds like your CEO is inspiring confidence just by walking in
It's fear, not confidence.
This, sometimes coworkers have charming personalities. Every company has at least one lovable guy.
Hahaha viva la sarcasm
We need a web standard for sarcasm. A specific font that is only used in lieu of /s
It took about a decade for people to learn that expressing yourself candidly online must be done anonymously or in a private space, or there will be negative consequences. I think long-term this will doom facebook (the website), but not meta.
Christopher Poole of 4chan was talked about this in 2011:

>Poole complains that Facebook and Google+ are making identity "black and white," forcing users to be the same person in all contexts -- offline, online, at home, at work, etc. "We all have multiple identities. That's not abnormal. It's part of being human. Identity is prismatic," he says.

>"We are multi-faceted. Google and Facebook would have you believe you are a mirror, that there is one reflection that you have, one idea of self... but in fact we are more like diamonds. You can look at people from any angle and can see something totally different, but they are still the same."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/10/20/chris-po...

This is an amazing take thanks for sharing
Great quote. I agree with it 100%. It is so obvious too. We act different with our parents than we do with our peers and different with our children than we do with our colleagues. One Identity/Face isn't sustainable.
Has there never been a social network where "faceted identities" are baked in? Something like Reddit, but with the possibility of having a different identity for different subreddits.
We took a shot at this with Gliph.

The problem is building a social network people want to use is a problem well out in advance of faceted identities.

That is very hard. Building identity management first is a solution in search of a problem.

This was common sense in 90s and early 00s.