Are you still using LinkedIn, the website where failed tech startup entrepreneurs go to die and “AI” influencers try to sell you on the latest version of the chatbot Florpium like a Utah mom trying to sell leggings that are totally not an MLM? If you are, and the other ten thousand reasons not to use the website incarnation of an ad for a personal injury lawyer along I-11 in Henderson, Nevada, weren’t enough, Microsoft just handed you another one.
LinkedIn removed transgender-related protections from its policy on hateful and derogatory content. The platform no longer lists “misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals” as examples of prohibited conduct. While “content that attacks, denigrates, intimidates, dehumanizes, incites or threatens hatred, violence, prejudicial or discriminatory action” is still considered hateful, addressing a person by a gender and name they ask not be designated by is not anymore.
Similarly, the platform removed “race or gender identity” from its examples of inherent traits for which negative comments are considered harassment. That qualification of harassment is now kept only for behaviour that is actively “disparaging another member’s […] perceived gender”, not mentioning race or gender identity anymore.
↫ Matti Schneider at the Open Terms Archive
Microsoft joined the chorus of pathetic, spineless US tech companies bowing to far-right extremism long ago, and this is just another sign that Microsoft, like so many other US tech companies, is pulling an IBM. They did learn from the best, after all, and it doesn’t surprise me one bit that all of these CEOs click their heels like the good little brownshirts that they are.
Anyway, LinkedIn has no value to anyone with even a gram of self-respect, and Microsoft’s other products are such utter trash they basically have to make you upgrade at the barrel of a gun. For those using their products – do you hate yourself that much?
You deserve so much more.
You’re no Hemingway, are you, Thom?
Hemingway was a writer! Good job! 😀
Linkedin is necessary these days if you want to find a job (and with all these layoffs going on recently, there are many people looking for a job), the above article by Thom is surprising in how tone-deaf it is and how little it’s grounded in reality.
The reality of the tech sector is that LinkedIn is basically the Only source of job roles. Yes, many will then ask you re-enter everything into workable. But the original source is always LinkedIn.
While you might not Like the platform, if you need a job, you need to use it.
In fairness to Thom, he doesn’t work in the IT sector. And I have no idea if thats how you source translation roles (not My sector)
Yep. You will not find a job in certain sectors without LinkedIn. Why you would choose to offend readers for something they have to use to earn a living is beyond me. Truly bizarre.
I have had better luck with recruiters, and that is saying a lot. I have never gotten a job because of LinkedIn, and I have had an account since 2010.
I keep my LinkedIn hibernated most of the year because I can’t stand it.
Okay, I’ll say it: you can’t have it both ways.
We cannot ask for free speech protections for things we like, and also at the same time want to ban things we find objectionable.
Just two days ago we were (rightfully) complaining EU and UK implementing censorship (and US not too far behind):
https://www.osnews.com/story/142908/the-eus-age-verification-application-requires-a-google-or-apple-account-and-google-approved-android-device-or-iphone/#comments
Sorry, but we cannot pick and choose. Why? Because the content we deem pretty normal (like government criticism or legitimate worker grievances) would be “hate-speech” for someone else.
(This does not mean “absolution” of course. Actual crime, child abuse and similar that are already accepted to be illegal have no place)
sukru,
Indeed.
I lean heavily towards free speech whenever it comes to government censors. I accept that private owners have a right to censor speech on their own property to maintain a level of decorum that would otherwise break down. if a private website owner wants to censor topics, I don’t necessarily like it, but it is their right to.
I find it significantly harder to find a balance in public settings. I wish people would refrain from ever using hate speech (meaning actual hate speech and not just a dissenting opinion labeled as hate speech). Alas, this won’t stop and I genuinely don’t know what to do about it. Empowering the government to act invites the broader weaponization of censorship to catastrophic affect when the pendulum swings. It doesn’t matter if the arguments are made in bad faith. Take a look at how the Trump admin is repressing free speech on the middle east conflict at educational institutions. Universities are now risking huge financial consequences and revocation of international student VISAs if they don’t police free speech on campus to the white house’s satisfaction.
Alfman,
OSNews logged me out just after posting and voided my original comment.
So a short one:
Yes, the question should not be “what can we do with these new powers?”, but rather “what would others do when they eventually control these powers”
Hear, hear
EDIt: Huh, this should be a reply to OP, not to your comment, j0scher. Weird.
Would you say the same if LinkedIn would allow you to say the variety of slurs about people of colour or Jewish people? Would you defend that just as much as allowing slurs for trans people?
If not… Maybe ask yourself why that is.
Thom,
Would I be happy about it if they do that? No, I’d be upset.
But would I support the right to do “offensive speech”? Yes.
In terms of free speech, there is no exemption for those things we find vile, disgusting, offensive or unpopular.
Once again, if it is not actually inciting violence, if a true threat, causing a physical altercation, or are slander… these are protected even if we do not like them.
I’m torn.
I don’t use LinkedIn (or Facebook, or Whatsapp or tiktok or instagram), all out of principle, and I’ve been a full time IT professional for 22 years. I last changed job 2 yeas ago and a few friends lost jobs in a mass layoff a year ago.
Many found jobs without linkedin.
Maybe it is a Europe vs US thing?
Shiunbird,
I’m in the US, yet found my last two jobs outside of LinkedIn.
To be fair, I got many interviews there and became close. But, yes, it is definitely not a strict requirement.
sukru,
Getting a job may be a lot like men getting matches on dating sites. The common adage that “there’s someone out there for everyone” is complicated by the fact that market preferences are highly concentrated towards the top. A small subset of men ~15% get the majority of interest while those in the long tail increasingly struggle the further down you go.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-of-our-unions/202305/the-harsh-reality-men-face-on-dating-apps
There’s reason to believe tech jobs are even more concentrated at the very top primarily based on previous employers and university reputation on your resume. Workers with average resumes simply don’t have the same opportunities. I’ve been at the hiring table and I’ve seen it first hand. The candidates we put at the top of the pile are very likely the same candidates everyone puts at the top of the pile. Even if there are hundreds of applications, we go through them in order and the odds of getting the job if you aren’t on top get slimmer and slimmer.
I’ve read that google hires 0.2% of those who apply…
https://qz.com/285001/heres-why-you-only-have-a-0-2-chance-of-getting-hired-at-google
For the much smaller companies where I was part of the job selection process, we had around 100-200 applications per spot, so the odds were 0.5%-1%. It’s not necessarily that the rest weren’t qualified, but most employers don’t care about the rest. I believe this is the norm. Those at 1 percentile can easily get jobs while those at 50 percentile face a numbers game and have to cast much larger nets.
Personally I’ve landed most of my jobs through connections rather than applying as a random guy. I’ve found this much more reliable but you also get pigeonholed into the same kind of work, which isn’t necessarily the work I wanted to be doing. Sadly I’ve kind of given up my original dreams.
Alfman,
I have to admit, I might have benefited from this by having a certain company in my resume. But that only gets you so far.
In my job search adventure, I realized it has become much more difficult over time. In the past, I would just run up to recruiters, give my (objectively badly written) resume, and get an interview, many times an offer.
(Yes, my resume was real bad. Several professionals, including my university’s career services said as much)
Now, not only the resume needs to be almost perfect, you have to hit all the boxes. I have been rejected early on from several opportunities for making some human jokes (no nothing bad, just showing humility and joking about self limits, they … seem to expect perfect robots).
And I don’t know how this will affect junior programmers, though.
Many institutions have the wrong expectation that an AI (chat bot) can replace them. They cannot. (I professionally use several, they are useful, but nowhere near even an entry level programmer).
I do not know what will happen, but I will still ask my kids to learn programming. Best luck to us all.
sukru,
I agree that timing makes a huge difference. I cannot remember which study it was, but they measured a high correlation between the phase of business cycles upon entering the job market and standard of living far later in life. On average, those who enter the market on a down period end up on a worse lifelong trajectory, not merely because they had to take worse jobs, but because they loose out on critical connections for the rest of their careers.
I think we share similar views on AI’s trajectory. Its not able to do 100% of the job, at least not yet. It’s not about asking the AI to do work that humans couldn’t do, it’s about using AI effectively to help get results faster.
As AI improves, I have a complicated view about AI taking on more work from humans long term. Becoming more efficient is ostensibly good for humanity, why shouldn’t it be! But that really depends on how society ultimately distributes the gains in GDP on the macro-economic scale. Unfortunately when we look at historical data from the past half-century, gains in GDP have not trickled down. If increased productivity from AI creates business redundancies that enable corporations to do more with less, and I predict it will, then those savings need to macro-economically make it back to the working class to be beneficial for us. However if the corporations keep the benefits for themselves, then AI becomes an inevitable vehicle for shifting even more wealth away from the working class. This concerns me.
Yeah. On the plus side AI will create jobs for those creating/running the AI. But on the minus side, AI stands to displace many workers, I suspect many millions more than the jobs created.
LinkedIn is actually the last website you want to have a profile on!
Unlike platforms like Google and Facebook, LinkedIn knows *everything* about you. Your address, your jobhistory, your phone number and your connections.It’s incredibly spammy and I have never had any serious reaction on LinkedIn from any company except aggresive recruiter companies and what I remember from 10 years ago when I deleted the account, you could Like made-up qualifications from other people. wtf?
I don’t want to work for any company that uses LinkedIn as a source for their hirings.
Oh no, they removed something from the list of EXAMPLES. Maybe they simply felt it was covered just fine by the other examples, or the overall rule itself?
LinkedIn has plenty of value, so does many other Microsoft products. You can choose to only look at the negative sides, but you will be unhappy as nothing will ever feel good enough for you. While i for sure wont deny that right-extremism is rampant at the moment, you do come out as being rather extremist yourself.