Just who are these arbiters of content for Linked In?
An increasing number of comments on seem to be asserting that certain status updates represent inappropriate content for Linked In. Mainly centred around the theme of ‘this isn’t Facebook’, these self-appointed policers of content seem to be somewhat aggrieved by the nature or style of certain status updates – but where are these mysterious guidelines? I couldn’t find any.
Linked In do provide generic Professional Community Guidelines, but – along with the expected legal warnings – “being real, professional, nice and respectful of other’s rights and Linked In’s rights” doesn’t stipulate the nature of what can and can’t be shared.
Things evolve – just refer to Darwin’s theses. Are we really to believe that Mark Zuckerberg foresaw that the ultimate aim of American College students (to ‘make The Facebook’) would evolve into a seemingly endless loop of peoples’ meal choices? Did Ev Williams imagine in his wildest dreams that his idea for ‘140 characters or less’ would morph into popular culture’s barometer as to which B-List ‘celebrities’ were enduring life in an Australian rainforest the best? Of course they didn’t.
English language etymologists deride the adoption of popular memes and phrases in vain – for our beautiful language changes with us; and so therefore will social media platforms. Resistance is futile.
Of course it is perfectly acceptable – and indeed encouraged – to have and to voice an opinion; but just as trying to smother the voice of Trump by constantly (and publically) airing his views is self-defeating; so is sharing one’s opinion on what is or isn’t appropriate for Linked In. The act of airing a view that this shouldn’t ‘be in here’ contributes to its very pervasion!
By all means dislike it – just do it quietly. Instead of proclaiming that it might be time you ‘went to Xing’ (whatever the hell that is); just go. No one cares. No one should care. Linked In and others will survive without you – and other platforms will survive because of you. It’s the way we all evolve.
I do have a clear strategy for what type of content I post on particular platforms; but to imagine that this will remain a constant would represent professional suicide. I do occasionally see things on Linked In that I would (personally) have shared elsewhere, and vice versa; but as we cannot enforce ‘other’ platforms on fellow contributors then I maintain a watching brief, and will adopt according to change. I certainly won’t ‘share the hell out of it’ in an attempt to stifle. I might as well ‘fight for peace’, ‘stamp out quicksand’, or ‘go shagging for virginity’.
Which camp are you in then? Strict adherence to an assumed protocol, or laissez-faire and evolution? Why not let everyone know in the comments section below?
Get the latest Furious Blogs delivered straight to your inbox for free once a month – simply enter your email address here. Please share this article using the links at ‘share with friends’ below.
- Social Media and the Freelancer
- I don’t believe in Social Media
- Websites for freelancers
- Scams, lies and pitfalls – welcome to the Cloud Age
- New Reaper IoT Botnet Leaves 378 Million IoT Devices Potentially Vulnerable to Hacking - October 30, 2017
- Boost for electric and driverless car industry as government drives forward green transport revolution - October 27, 2017
- Industry-led review details plans to supercharge UK AI industry - October 25, 2017
- Are these the worlds ugliest football kits? - October 23, 2017
- F-35 jet cleared for Carrier take-off - October 20, 2017
- Microsoft and GE sign agreement on new wind energy project in Ireland - October 18, 2017
- New £48 billion funding for UK’s railways - October 16, 2017
- Dark Web Ransomware Economy Growing at an Annual Rate of 2,500% - October 13, 2017
- Most IT professionals not confident in their company’s ability to prevent data breaches - October 4, 2017
- Top British companies seek cyber solutions from Israel in battle against hackers - September 13, 2017