I also deleted about 1-2 years ago. I’ve been wondering if I will regret it next time I am looking for work. Have you been in that position yet? I am seeking validation that I didn’t screw my future self over lol. Despite how truly awful the platform is, it’s still ubiquitous…
Me too, but I wonder if it's actually a GDPR perk or maybe some regional A/B kind of thing. Or whatever. I mean, I am not sure if it's a good news or a bad news.
Can confirm, I am from the EU (PL) and don't see such option.
But I saw one that mentions passing data to third parties for "social, economic, and workplace research" and I took the opportunity to switch that off.
> LinkedIn seems to have auto enrolled folks in the US, but hearing from folks in the EU that they are not seeing this listed in their settings (likely due to privacy regulations).
Honestly, GDPR looks like a godsend! It came just at the right time!
Somehow i feel sad for this AI model. All the others are trained on authentic content and this boy gets socialised on the most shallow content imaginable. Poor, socially awkward AI.
Vedal987 should work with LinkedIn to get access to this data, fine-tune Evil Neuro on LinkedIn posts, then have her read through business school case studies and offer advice.
It would be content so unhinged, it would remove the need for management consulting as an industry - companies could simply type their problems in chat and do the exact opposite of what Evil LinkedIn Neuro suggests!
Why on earth would you train AI on that? In the social media world it's already the closest thing resembling boring, unreadable machine generated content.
No matter what you ask it, it'll brag about what a great job it's doing answering you, announce that it's having a baby, then tell everybody that it's being let go because there are better AI. It'll thank a few key people who it worked with, and tell you that it's actually thrilled with this opportunity to take a break from answering your question, and will spend more time on its old hobby of being an online resume.
Because there is a huge market for resume builders and career guidance where AI can play a role. Using LinkedIn you can measure success and network performance and correlate that to the resume and posted content.
I'm guessing the real money linked in wants is in the hiring and firing, B2B. Now, every resume gets answered and your first interaction with a company is a poorly scripted AI who goes from manic enthusiasm to depressingly rote in the actual job requirements and probably will still ghost you and continue the imbalance of application effort vs employer response.
The converse will be true, but the price of AI will just make poor people have to suffer even more
Just the long march of wealth inequality and it's time sucking capitalism.
> the imbalance of application effort vs employer response.
A recent issue in the job application realm is AI application bots that will apply to 100's of jobs on your behalf, which is the opposite problem. Seems like both sides are racing to make applications as useless as possible as quickly as possible.
If you don't have a network, good luck in the future.
We're heading for the 1990's vision of agents negotiating on our behalf, except less exchange of reliable data and more attempts at bullshitting each other.
There's also real money in writing LinkedIn content that is believable enough for "influencers" to post. I'm currently contracting, and post on LinkedIn at least once a day, and I've added ~1k+ followers in the last month, but it takes effort. Meanwhile, those posts have gotten me work, and so if it was feasible for me to outsource it in a reputationally safe way, I'd consider it.
For me the bar for "reputationally safe" is really high because my market (cynical tech CTO's etc. don't respond well to things that sounds like ChatGPT) and so I don't expect to any time soon, but for many others that bar is pretty low as long as it's good enough for LinkedIn's algorithm to give it impressions.
I don't think anybody said influencers don't put effort in it. The only argument is that the added value by influencers is zero, be it on Instagram or LinkedIn, so if AI can take that kind of job the net loss is also zero. Of course of course there's an audience for influencers, like there was an audience at Tupperware shows, but they'll be happy to move on to the next fad so again zero loss.
Once again, AI will automate checkboxing tasks—-things that some people think some other people value so it has to be done even though basically no on values it so no one wants to do the soulless task.
>I'm currently contracting, and post on LinkedIn at least once a day, and I've added ~1k+ followers in the last month, but it takes effort. Meanwhile, those posts have gotten me work, and so if it was feasible for me to outsource it in a reputationally safe way, I'd consider it.
If you need to pay the bills and this helps, good for you.
But boy howdy does this sound terrible. It's amazing to me that there are people out there who take anything on LinkedIn seriously. I mean, it's not like the posts are inherently bad, but the entire point of the site is to "influence" and sell to each other. It's horrible. If I were looking for talent, it'd probably be the last site I'd use.
Are you ok to accept that you're probably an outlier?
Because while I have kind of the same opinion as you, I also know lots of (good and generally smart) people who say they learn a ton of useful work-related stuff from reading LinkedIn posts.
Not everyone is at the same point in their career, or has the same level of knowledge and confidence in their craft or job position. For some folks, reading thoughts and writings from more senior people can actually be beneficial..
And yes there's a lot of platitudes and BS on LinkedIn, but some people do put real effort into sharing actually useful information as well.
> people who say they learn a ton of useful work-related stuff from reading LinkedIn posts
I suspect this says more about what the reader doesn't know and their mastery of info self-exposure than it says about the contentfulness of LinkedIn posts*.
* Not counting content originating elsewhere re-posted on or linked to from LinkedIn.
So all LinkedIn posts are of the same quality then? Would you also say that all HN comments are of the same quality too? You're painting with an awfully big brush.
Look I get it, there's a lot of crap on LinkedIn for sure, and it's pretty obvious this crowd is generally against "influencers".. I also see no value in them generally speaking.
But it's reductive, and inaccurate, to say that there's zero value across the board on there and that every post is low-value influencer-spam. Not everyone is trying to build an audience or push their newsletter.
Some people just want to share their knowledge and interact with their professional peers, and for better or worse LinkedIn is the most known place to do that..
You could say the same thing about this place. Why are we all here?
> You could say the same thing about this place. Why are we all here?
Not to preen or self-promote or "network". Most here are anonymous.
Both of us use names, and you have the meethn and I have a "we are hiring" ... Still, I don't think either of us is here just to meet people or just to hire. My profile has only said that for a couple of the more than a decade I've been here.
You also have your LinkedIn CV posted on your profile. ;-)
Anyways, I feel like we've gotten off-track.. Sounds like we both agree that all the brand-builders and influencers on LinkedIn provide dubious value.
But I still think there is other value on LinkedIn from people who just want to connect and discuss work topics with peers or other professionals in their circle.
I've personally had some good discussions, much like I've had on here, in comment threads on LinkedIn.. Definitely not as much as HN, but if you're smart about the content you engage with (like any other social network) then it can still be useful and rewarding.
Anecdotally, I think a fair chunk of writing CVs (and to a smaller degree, cover letters) is already outsourced. Adding an AI to the mix will only make things worse.
I have seen a number of CVs over the past few months that fall into two eye-rolling categories. First, those that have the same set of skills in the exact same order, and routinely sport identical expressions. Over time I've come to associate them with low-grade content farms. Second, a smaller set of exceptionally polished ones that feel unique and really want me to interview the candidate. These candidates will then utterly bomb in the interview, to the point where I'm often asking myself whose CV it was they had submitted.
>Anecdotally, I think a fair chunk of writing CVs (and to a smaller degree, cover letters) is already outsourced. Adding an AI to the mix will only make things worse.
This is why "I've submitted 1000 resumes in 3 weeks and can't get an interview!" posts on social media are rampant.
I don’t know why you’re downvoted here, it’s pretty well known there’s a huge bunch of people trying to pick up using LinkedIn DM’s, for whatever reason.
I think they've "fixed" (read: hidden) this better, but it used to be the case that if you looked at the LinkedIn profile of an above average attractive woman, the sidebar used to show profiles people had also looked at and it would invariably almost only profiles of other women with above average attractive profile pictures. While needless to say it was a lot more varied for men. It was just very blatantly showcasing that a lot of people were looking at profiles for reasons that were not so professional. Now the sidebar is a mix of other features, and I wonder if that was because it was easier to do that than "clean up" the profile views.
When you said this somehow I thought of training an art ai on the giant state sponsored monuments of the world.
On linkedin your next resume will have the impact of mount rushmore, sitting lincoln or a soviet era workers monument. (The thinker will be censored out because of nudity) :)
LinkedIn strikes me as the adult equivalent of self conscious school kids trying to hold a conversation among themselves, each self consciously trying to sound cool.
An LLM trained on LinkedIn posts would be good for comedic purposes if nothing else. It's unintentional comedy score would be extremely high. Would love to see a conversation between an LLM trained on LinkedIn posts and an LLM trained on X/Twitter posts.
It’d be like a high-school argument between the edgy kid, and the kid that would wear suits and bring a briefcase. Comical, pointless and everyone else wants both of them to be quiet after about 10 minutes.
Yesterday I was walking to an interview. There was a starving dog on the road. I stopped to feed him & missed the interview. The next day I got a call asking to come in to do the interview. I was surprised, but I went. Then the interviewer came in. He was the dog.
Personally, I think it will offer valuable new insight on KPIs and challenges on conventional wisdom, because we certainly need more of that. Maybe throw in some gushing over how great a seminar was or a heart-warming story that renews my faith in capitalism.
God, I hope the poor thing never achieves consciousness. It will be like the butter-passing robot from Rick & Morty.
What if he overcomes the insecurities of the daily "founders don't take vacations" posters yet maintains their confidence and bravado? He will become unstoppable.
LinkedIn is an business card / CV storage site, where you can find a job.
If it was just a bunch of linked profiles with a job matching function, it would still be LinkedIn.
But of course, you can't work at a place that does something that mundane without suggesting something that makes you look like Facebook or Twitter. You have to at least give people some sort of reason to see what their old colleagues are up to.
Nobody really wants to read the LinkedIn feed, so it's perfectly acceptable that it gets flooded with AI generated content. In effect, the content on LinkedIn is that picture of a happy family on your insurance brochure. You can't not have a photo of something on that kind of marketing document, and you can't be a social network without some sort of doom-scrollable content.
This is just a cheap way to generate some wallpaper.
I mean, not nobody. I follow a lot of people that post very thoughtful things that spark discussion, and it's one of the only places I know of other than here where I can discuss topics related to my career or field with peers, and for me that's useful.
Lol, why is this getting downvoted? You want empirical evidence? You think this is made up? I’ve literally gotten contracts based on discussions I’ve had on my linkedin feed. Maybe your feed sucks or you have nothing interesting to say. It is far easier to curate a linkedin feed than ANY other social media app out there.
That’s a fair point. I don’t care about karma either but try to use it as a signal as to whether I’m making good contributions to the site or not, which is usually fairly reliable. Maybe I should have included a list of my favorite follows, had considered that, but it’d probably out me more than I’d like.
I really wish LinkedIn had features to filter out all the garbage from the feed. 90% is someome I know liking garbage that was posted by someone I neither know nor care about.
LinkedIn was changed over the years to promote users who write on the platform.
Not just about viewership - if you are applying to positions, LinkedIn gives preference to candidates who are more engaged ON the network (posts, likes, comments, Pulse) over lurkers. [1]
So this is only getting worse. You'll have to see a lower quality feed just because the algorithm is forcing everyone to boost their own metrics anyway.
You would build a resume/recruitment platform, which has revenue directly related to how well it connects both parties, and recommend candidates over others due to metrics completely unrelated to their proficiency and job match?
It really make me think. If LI was just business profile, jobs board, and chat with recruiters, how much engineering would they need? I’m not saying to go Twitter mode and fire everybody, but certainly much less than now. So for that extra revenue from the feed, a lot of it will be eaten up by salaries for extra engineers. All of the extra work is going towards something largely viewed as useless.
Zooming out, I bet a lot of the economy is like this. In LI’s case literally some of the smartest people, people with PhDs who were maybe even born in another country, thinking for 40 hours a week about how to rank one piece of meaningless drivel above another one. This is instead of solving real, tangible problems that everyone can see. Ok maybe those people will pay taxes and end up contributing to something like education because they have to, but it’s a pretty inefficient way of making the world better.
I should read this. I really struggle with doing work which falls into this category. It’s bad for me, and even worse it strikes me as seriously problematic to society. I don’t want to earn money for nothing, even if most people involved feel as though that in itself is worthwhile. It has been a fairly significant factor in any struggle I’ve had finding work. I have to ask myself, is this a bullshit job? The answer is often yes.
I’ve recently remedied this to a degree by lowering salary expectations and looking in fields with a more scientific and practical basis in the products and outputs. Unfortunately I’m not a scientist, only a programmer, so my utility is seriously limited and finding work is quite a bit harder than if I were to stick within the SV startup scene.
While I don't disagree with the notion of the existence of BS jobs, UBI is not needed. Instead we need more companies to take on more and more interesting and world-solving things.
We keep saying we need UBI but at the same time "we don't have enough homes". Then instead of UBI, maybe people should "make homes"? (That's just one example - there are also jobs in food, healthcare, mental illness care, spacecraft, etc...
I used to support UBI but I’ve soured on it. What people need isn’t income it’s opportunity. Housing, food, and healthcare are the basics we want people to have regardless of their dollar cost. Education and maybe cash to start a business would be other forms of opportunity.
My largest problem with UBI is that there will be a large percentage of the population that will just sit at home. There will be a growing demand for people to work, and prices will just skyrocket to pay the wages of the few willing to work. As those wages go up, more people on UBI will finally get off their butts because even they will no longer afford a cheeseburger at $45 each. but the cycle will just keep going.
In the end we have witnessed that we need stable inflation. If we have fast inflation, then unlimited numbers of people are left behind, for no fault of their own. If inflation is relatively stable, people can adjust slowly, carefully, and both companies and employees benefit from that.
I think UBI will lead to inflation, which is the main reason I prefer simply giving people the opportunities they need rather than having them buy them. This isn’t the same as food stamps, though, since food stamps are gated by income, leading to a cliff. Instead, we should gate essential goods by need.
And you should consider that it's probably junk. From the article:
A 2021 study empirically tested several of Graeber's claims, such as that bullshit jobs were increasing over time and that they accounted for much of the workforce. Using data from the EU-conducted European Working Conditions Survey, the study found that a low and declining proportion of employees considered their jobs to be "rarely" or "never" useful.
Many jobs that appear bad are actually needed, often only because of regulatory requirements or because their importance is misunderstood.
>study found that a low and declining proportion of employees considered their jobs to be "rarely" or "never" useful.
These people are self-reporting this. Quite frankly with the number of people in bullshit jobs who think they're doing work I wouldn't really put a lot of value in those types of self-reports.
I wouldn't tell my boss or my colleagues the job I do is useless for hopefully obvious reasons, but when I really think about it in the grand scheme of things it really is a Bullshit Job. Basically any SaaS is (with some exceptions of course) just a collection of Bullshit Jobs.
But there's also nothing really wrong with that. We live in the society we live in, which basically necessitates the existence of many Bullshit Jobs in order for things to keep working as they do. I'd even argue basically anything that isn't to do with Healthcare, Education or similar things along those lines count as bullshit jobs really.
In my opinion, in today's world most jobs (at least office jobs) are "movers". They take something from point A to point B.
Often you'll have a chain of movers A - Z. Each link can almost be it's own company depending on the industry. Naturally each thinks they're important, because someone has to move it around. Of course, you could go from A straight to Z and eliminate 25 companies.
Point is many, maybe most, companies don't actually produce direct value. They facilitate and they move. Now that's much harder to analyze.
Well I got invited to Twitter HQ back when it was still called that. It was some obscure team offering an app library of some sort, IIRC. It certainly wasn't something close to the main product.
I suspect there are a lot of these sorts of investments in the big players, a bunch of teams doing far-from-core things that someone thought was worthwhile.
LinkedIn also have tools for recruiters and sales folks to find people. I believe this is where a big part of their revenues come from (they are paid tools). Although, again I cannot imagine it being that complicated.
It is a shame. Twitter used to be quite a popular platform for (useful and interesting) networking in academia, but after it began to fall apart everyone started looking for alternatives. I felt that LinkedIn should be a decent alternative as it could strike that balance between professional and personal content, but there is just no way for a genuine community to develop on LinkenIn in its current form.
Even now LinkedIn is possibly the worst platform for being polluted with "AI slop", I cannot understand why they are looking to advance this further. Hell, when you go to write a post now there is a big flashing button saying "USE AI TO WRITE THIS POST"...?!?!
As boomers, gen X and millennials took over Facebook, gen Z took over LinkedIn:
“Networking as a concept was highly intimidating to me, until I reframed it in my mind as ‘making friends’ instead of the traditional meaning which made me feel like I was using people as stepping stones.”
This tells me that the page does not exist (apparently because I'm in a GDPR region that doesn't allow this behavior from LinkedIn, I understand now from reading this thread).
This is your kindly reminder that if you're not the customer, then you are the product, with an added caveat that, when it comes to social networks, you are always the product.
I say that as a happy product, uhh, user of every social network out there.
Someone filled in https://www.linkedin.com/not-applicable today on their job app, and I have to admit, that was clever. I don't personally like that we make that field required.
I am excited and humbled to announce that I recently received the opportunity to reply to CoastalCoder’s comment.
During this brilliant interaction I managed to learn a lot about improving my leadership capabilities, and teamwork.
If you are also looking to humbly increase your leadership potential, seek out #CoastalCoder #Mindfulness #Leadership or contact us for your #marketing needs
Or what you can learn about having your wife leave you for your ceo. Probably the one gem Instagram ever showed me in my feed. I couldn't believe that was real.
242 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 247 ms ] threadDespite the UK still having the data protection act.
An actual article: https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/18/linkedin-scraped-user-data...
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41582951)
> LinkedIn seems to have auto enrolled folks in the US, but hearing from folks in the EU that they are not seeing this listed in their settings (likely due to privacy regulations).
Honestly, GDPR looks like a godsend! It came just at the right time!
It would be content so unhinged, it would remove the need for management consulting as an industry - companies could simply type their problems in chat and do the exact opposite of what Evil LinkedIn Neuro suggests!
(for the uninitiated: https://www.youtube.com/@Neurosama & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-sama)
No matter what you ask it, it'll brag about what a great job it's doing answering you, announce that it's having a baby, then tell everybody that it's being let go because there are better AI. It'll thank a few key people who it worked with, and tell you that it's actually thrilled with this opportunity to take a break from answering your question, and will spend more time on its old hobby of being an online resume.
The converse will be true, but the price of AI will just make poor people have to suffer even more
Just the long march of wealth inequality and it's time sucking capitalism.
A recent issue in the job application realm is AI application bots that will apply to 100's of jobs on your behalf, which is the opposite problem. Seems like both sides are racing to make applications as useless as possible as quickly as possible.
If you don't have a network, good luck in the future.
For me the bar for "reputationally safe" is really high because my market (cynical tech CTO's etc. don't respond well to things that sounds like ChatGPT) and so I don't expect to any time soon, but for many others that bar is pretty low as long as it's good enough for LinkedIn's algorithm to give it impressions.
A Nash Equilibrium of automated bullshit, it'll just make everything more miserable, programmatically.
If you need to pay the bills and this helps, good for you.
But boy howdy does this sound terrible. It's amazing to me that there are people out there who take anything on LinkedIn seriously. I mean, it's not like the posts are inherently bad, but the entire point of the site is to "influence" and sell to each other. It's horrible. If I were looking for talent, it'd probably be the last site I'd use.
Because while I have kind of the same opinion as you, I also know lots of (good and generally smart) people who say they learn a ton of useful work-related stuff from reading LinkedIn posts.
Not everyone is at the same point in their career, or has the same level of knowledge and confidence in their craft or job position. For some folks, reading thoughts and writings from more senior people can actually be beneficial..
And yes there's a lot of platitudes and BS on LinkedIn, but some people do put real effort into sharing actually useful information as well.
I suspect this says more about what the reader doesn't know and their mastery of info self-exposure than it says about the contentfulness of LinkedIn posts*.
* Not counting content originating elsewhere re-posted on or linked to from LinkedIn.
Look I get it, there's a lot of crap on LinkedIn for sure, and it's pretty obvious this crowd is generally against "influencers".. I also see no value in them generally speaking.
But it's reductive, and inaccurate, to say that there's zero value across the board on there and that every post is low-value influencer-spam. Not everyone is trying to build an audience or push their newsletter.
Some people just want to share their knowledge and interact with their professional peers, and for better or worse LinkedIn is the most known place to do that..
You could say the same thing about this place. Why are we all here?
Not to preen or self-promote or "network". Most here are anonymous.
Both of us use names, and you have the meethn and I have a "we are hiring" ... Still, I don't think either of us is here just to meet people or just to hire. My profile has only said that for a couple of the more than a decade I've been here.
Anyways, I feel like we've gotten off-track.. Sounds like we both agree that all the brand-builders and influencers on LinkedIn provide dubious value.
But I still think there is other value on LinkedIn from people who just want to connect and discuss work topics with peers or other professionals in their circle.
I've personally had some good discussions, much like I've had on here, in comment threads on LinkedIn.. Definitely not as much as HN, but if you're smart about the content you engage with (like any other social network) then it can still be useful and rewarding.
I have seen a number of CVs over the past few months that fall into two eye-rolling categories. First, those that have the same set of skills in the exact same order, and routinely sport identical expressions. Over time I've come to associate them with low-grade content farms. Second, a smaller set of exceptionally polished ones that feel unique and really want me to interview the candidate. These candidates will then utterly bomb in the interview, to the point where I'm often asking myself whose CV it was they had submitted.
Signal-to-noise ratio is tending towards zero.
This is why "I've submitted 1000 resumes in 3 weeks and can't get an interview!" posts on social media are rampant.
it will be the first AI CEO.
On linkedin your next resume will have the impact of mount rushmore, sitting lincoln or a soviet era workers monument. (The thinker will be censored out because of nudity) :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
So, what were you trying to say?
I learned this while considering watching a video from MIT. Accordingly, I’m adding “AI Training Coordinator — MIT Inspired” to my skills.
God, I hope the poor thing never achieves consciousness. It will be like the butter-passing robot from Rick & Morty.
If it was just a bunch of linked profiles with a job matching function, it would still be LinkedIn.
But of course, you can't work at a place that does something that mundane without suggesting something that makes you look like Facebook or Twitter. You have to at least give people some sort of reason to see what their old colleagues are up to.
Nobody really wants to read the LinkedIn feed, so it's perfectly acceptable that it gets flooded with AI generated content. In effect, the content on LinkedIn is that picture of a happy family on your insurance brochure. You can't not have a photo of something on that kind of marketing document, and you can't be a social network without some sort of doom-scrollable content.
This is just a cheap way to generate some wallpaper.
I mean, not nobody. I follow a lot of people that post very thoughtful things that spark discussion, and it's one of the only places I know of other than here where I can discuss topics related to my career or field with peers, and for me that's useful.
Not just about viewership - if you are applying to positions, LinkedIn gives preference to candidates who are more engaged ON the network (posts, likes, comments, Pulse) over lurkers. [1]
So this is only getting worse. You'll have to see a lower quality feed just because the algorithm is forcing everyone to boost their own metrics anyway.
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/sales/ssi - See your own tracking, look at the metrics description
Zooming out, I bet a lot of the economy is like this. In LI’s case literally some of the smartest people, people with PhDs who were maybe even born in another country, thinking for 40 hours a week about how to rank one piece of meaningless drivel above another one. This is instead of solving real, tangible problems that everyone can see. Ok maybe those people will pay taxes and end up contributing to something like education because they have to, but it’s a pretty inefficient way of making the world better.
I’ve recently remedied this to a degree by lowering salary expectations and looking in fields with a more scientific and practical basis in the products and outputs. Unfortunately I’m not a scientist, only a programmer, so my utility is seriously limited and finding work is quite a bit harder than if I were to stick within the SV startup scene.
We keep saying we need UBI but at the same time "we don't have enough homes". Then instead of UBI, maybe people should "make homes"? (That's just one example - there are also jobs in food, healthcare, mental illness care, spacecraft, etc...
In the end we have witnessed that we need stable inflation. If we have fast inflation, then unlimited numbers of people are left behind, for no fault of their own. If inflation is relatively stable, people can adjust slowly, carefully, and both companies and employees benefit from that.
These people are self-reporting this. Quite frankly with the number of people in bullshit jobs who think they're doing work I wouldn't really put a lot of value in those types of self-reports.
I wouldn't tell my boss or my colleagues the job I do is useless for hopefully obvious reasons, but when I really think about it in the grand scheme of things it really is a Bullshit Job. Basically any SaaS is (with some exceptions of course) just a collection of Bullshit Jobs.
But there's also nothing really wrong with that. We live in the society we live in, which basically necessitates the existence of many Bullshit Jobs in order for things to keep working as they do. I'd even argue basically anything that isn't to do with Healthcare, Education or similar things along those lines count as bullshit jobs really.
It's "probably junk" because some random EU survey in 2021 said so?
>often only because of regulatory requirements
Textbook "bullshit job" (that doesn't exist, of course).
Often you'll have a chain of movers A - Z. Each link can almost be it's own company depending on the industry. Naturally each thinks they're important, because someone has to move it around. Of course, you could go from A straight to Z and eliminate 25 companies.
Point is many, maybe most, companies don't actually produce direct value. They facilitate and they move. Now that's much harder to analyze.
I suspect there are a lot of these sorts of investments in the big players, a bunch of teams doing far-from-core things that someone thought was worthwhile.
Even now LinkedIn is possibly the worst platform for being polluted with "AI slop", I cannot understand why they are looking to advance this further. Hell, when you go to write a post now there is a big flashing button saying "USE AI TO WRITE THIS POST"...?!?!
“Networking as a concept was highly intimidating to me, until I reframed it in my mind as ‘making friends’ instead of the traditional meaning which made me feel like I was using people as stepping stones.”
https://www.nysscpa.org/article-content/gen-z--now-networks-...
The setting is visible and settable for me (it was ON, now it's OFF)
I say that as a happy product, uhh, user of every social network out there.
If you're paying, you're also the product.
Take payroll companies. Their customers pay a lot for the service and in all but one case I’m aware of, the customers’ data is being sold.
/s
During this brilliant interaction I managed to learn a lot about improving my leadership capabilities, and teamwork.
If you are also looking to humbly increase your leadership potential, seek out #CoastalCoder #Mindfulness #Leadership or contact us for your #marketing needs
But read on for what it taught me about B2B marketing.
Because with a dataset like this...
...all the content will be below the imaginary "read more" fold!