LinkedIn and Censorship in China
en.greatfire.org
en.greatfire.org
Just less emails telling me my mom has endorsed me for Javascript.
For me it's a convenient way of having recruiters reach out without having my normal inbox completely spammed.
I have replied to a few recruiters and while I haven't changed companies, it is the equivelent of head hunters for our generation and some of them have been very, very tempting offers.
It's also a pretty good platform to look for jobs out of your local network, say, if you're a foreigner looking to tap in that sweet sweet US tech job market.
I dont see LinkedIn as being able to do much that personal websites would not do better. I use LinkedIn because many people, even coders do not have websites.
But to me the best advantage of LinkedIn is it helps separate professional relationships/conversation separate from my personal life. My contact network at LinkedIn showing my professional connections is very different than my contact network in Facebook, and while I use both, I don't want them to be mixed.
Plus, it keeps my CV and I don't have to always look for my CV in bunch of doc files if I have to send it to someone.
Maybe you would have a different experience if you would spend more time on setting it up? (writing the CV, adding the right people. etc)
My problem was actually getting too many recruiters contacting me offering me jobs out of my interest and it ultimately felt like that email inbox you check once a month to wipe only out the spam.
While I understand some developers find use in LinkedIn, I still think that this might be biased if alternative ways of job seeking weren't also simultaneously pursued. I believe that having a good GitHub, releasing products, blogging, tweeting, and attending meetups can all be affective means of network building.
It's a really scummy company.
And as others mentioned, they send out emails that purposely look like some LinkedIn user has sent something to you specifically.
I think they're utter scumbags.
And in both cases you can ask the candidate to speak to their "skillset".
The first thing that really put me off was when LinkedIn asked me to give them access to my Gmail account.
I don’t like their endorsement system. It asks my network to endorse me in things I’ve never mentioned I know. So the guy on your network thinks that he ought to endorse you out of courtesy and you end up with a list of a couple dozen things you are totally unaware of. How does this helps with anything?
Then there is the fact that pretty much everyone in there lies about their experience or their job titles. And I mean everyone, or at least everyone I happen to know. I get it, most people want to be perceived as more important than they are. But to me this whole situation seems ridiculous. And that leads to another problem. You can’t find any really interesting and engaging discussion because everyone is careful not to overstep any boundaries that might make them look unprofessional. Bottom line there is no community in there which makes the whole site much less useful.
Tons of recruiter spam and so on, not to mention the email dark patterns.
All "x site is the new resume" approaches are flawed, but at least GitHub-as-resume encourages publishing code and evaluating people by the code they've written and how they interact with open source projects. LinkedIn is good for cronyism and pretending that "n years at Company Inc." is particularly meaningful.
-engagement ads of some kind (exposure to your business in general, banners, etc.)
-leads for job ads and contracts
-general job ads searchable by candidates
But for a potential direct replacement (and selling the related ads), I think it's hard to justify building out a social networking platform when there are so many robust options already available. Unless you're going to really bring something new to the table there, why rewrite FB/LI/etc?
In terms of selling access to candidates and job ads, lots of companies are starting to get this right in their particular vertical without having to include a social component (in software, see Angel.co, SO Careers, Hired.com, etc.).
Just my 0.02 dollars, certainly not an expert here.
They look me up on Linkedin and I can see who they are and what they have done and who they know and search for relevant stuff.
I meet a lot of investors and in general people from all over the world and have been very happy with LinkedIn personally. It's the least intrusive social network I know off.
"You will not create more than one personal account."
I know a lot of people that don't look for jobs anywhere else already - spam ads are very rare.
And, yes, I am in business.
Companies and recruiters will not be welcome (at least initially) and there will never be advertising or a pay-for-spam model or any other super skeezy business model like individual information or making custom tools for government censors.
We're hoping to not even have Google Analytics or any other 3rd party tracking site once we get out of open beta. Also, no spamming our own users ala LinkedIn. This is the notify me on open beta link:
(Note the POST to the server is HTTPS, we just haven't bothered setting up the certs for the Ember App hoster yet.)
Feel free to sign up to get notified if you want. Or don't. We'll post it here once we open up the beta anyway :)
... and...
> Companies and recruiters will not be welcome (at least initially
So it's not a LinkedIn competitor, then.
It might very well turn out you're onto something great and I'm not saying this as criticism, but from description you're trying to become something fundamentally different from what LinkedIn is. Don't try to sell yourself as a LinkedIn alternative.
LinkedIn is where I go when I want to find someone important in company X that I wouldn't normally have access to, typically in functions that are usually outside of my normal circle. E.g. I got two separate SVP's at DHL to personally interfere to get a package I was waiting for redirected when their local customer service was being useless once.
It's where I go when I want to find recruiters with contacts in the right companies, whether to hire or to be hired.
It's where I go when I want to research companies to see if they're a good fit to work at, or a good fit to partner with etc.
It's where I go when I want to contact someone I've worked with in the past but not closely enough to e.g. have them on facebook or have their current phone number or e-mail. This last one appears to be pretty much the only one that fits your model, except I often want people outside of the techies.
This is why I'm reasonably active (couple of times a month) on LinkedIn, and not at all (once a year at most) on Facebook. For me, you'd fall closer to the Facebook end of the spectrum based on your homepage. That's not necessarily bad (clearly my Facebook usage is crazily atypical), but it's a different niche.
When I say "no recruiters" I don't mean "no recruitment". What I mean is that there shouldn't be these people that spam your inbox with messages like this:
The problem with recruiters is that to them its a numbers game. They don't care if they waste a minute of your time, they aren't really there to help you. They actively try to prevent you from even finding out who the company is so you don't go around them.
A site that helps people find better places to work is a good thing. The way recruiters and companies do it (by spamming people) is not. Ultimately we'll have to have a company profile page, but we want to make sure it is done right.
As for finding companies worth working with, that is something we'd like to tackle, but we're a professional social network for people before we're one for companies. But I agree that it is important to at least present information on a company, even if there isn't company-wide accounts (which we're still thinking about).
But fundamentally, you are right, we aren't a LinkedIn competitor the same way that Pepsi is a Coke competitor. We are building something different, and if you love LinkedIn then that is just fine with us.
Screenshot - http://i.imgur.com/FUOrylH.png
Edit: Should work now :)
I'm more concerned about the NSA and whatever shenanigans American corporations are capitulating to back home. That is something where I have the context, cultural awareness, and moral duty to try to effect change. But when it comes to the Chinese government, I don't see how western individuals or companies have any capacity to impose their moral compass. If you don't comply with local laws then you don't operate in that country. China will simply build their own LinkedIn and the world will be less connected. I don't see how that adds a modicum of pressure for the Chinese government to reform, change has to be demanded from within China.
They are not even remotely the same thing. You can choose to ignore "social media outrage" and stay out of jail; try ignoring government demands in China and see how it works out.
Cultural pressure to conform may be strong, but as long as it's informal, it's relatively easy to survive. When it becomes formal, you have to deal with a lot of people legally allowed to physically hurt you.
There is censorship in the West (especially in the UK, where the police started jailing Twitter trolls and Facebook bullies, as well as censoring DNS calls), but it's nowhere near the scale of what you see in China... yet.
> I don't see how this makes LinkedIn morally bankrupt - or more accurately, the whole industry is morally bankrupt
Maybe LI is a bit morally-bankrupter than the average?
I thought Weibo was still big in China, yet this implies that the service is on the wane?
EDIT: Now HN has edited the title again to something completely unlike the original title.
Yeah, well, the "country" has an all-encompassing government, which is pretty consistent in applying a uniform set of policies (at least when the policies benefit the government, anyway). In the context of an article about censorship and cooperating with authoritarian governments, it makes perfect sense.
Just wanted to point out that many Chinese citizens are victims of the system you're describing and it would be unfair to them to use too broad a stroke when talking about a "country" (as opposed to "The Chinese government" or even "some factions of the Chinese government").
They have the money to buy iPhones but not your average 0.99$ app ?