The Myopia of LinkedIn Originalism
Romi Mahajan
Chief Executive, Chief Marketing Officer, Science-Commercializer, PropTech Advisor, and Strategist, Author, Investor
LinkedIn has certainly changed.
For LI watchers and users, the last few years have witnessed some big changes in the nature of the content posted on the platform. LinkedIn’s origins are as a business networking platform; now, LI is equal part business networking and opinion sharing- on matters are diverse as healthcare, politics, religion, and child-rearing. “Discussions” on LI can be friendly or vitriolic. Many of the “indulgences” common to social media in general- storytelling, personal sharing, rants, raves, and so on- have become commonplace on LI.
And some people are pissed-off. Some-perhaps- for good reason. Others, because of some puerile sense of “originalism.” It’s eerie because a lot of people in the second camp would recoil at the other platform that is tending towards “originalism”- e.g. SCOTUS- with its revanchist march.
99% of the LinkedIn Originalists suggest that if someone wants to post anything that is not “strictly” work related, that Facebook is the place. LinkedIn, they say, was meant only for business.
Such laments suggest many things at once, of which two stand out. The first, is the call for censorship. Open platforms with universal authorship rights by definition have to be open to any communications that comes across the transom, unless that communication constitutes a clear and present danger. That is the standard in the public square. Now, the LIO’s might say, LI is private not public. True, but the masters of LI (Microsoft) want the forum to be as large as possible because they make money on scale. So, the only thing the LIO’s are truly asking for is for Microsoft to clamp down on users. Sounds a ton like censorship.
The second is the ahistoricity of the argument. I mean, a Facebook Originalist could say, with the full authority of truth behind her that “Facebook was meant for college kids to connect with each other not for politics, personal laments, or complaints.” Not what it is today. Oh and by the way, the printing press was invented to disseminate the teachings of the Church. Seems to have gone far beyond that. And so on. Platforms evolve. And people realize that their “work lives” and their full lives are not hermetically separated. Why is LI sacrosanct in its “originalism?” Are the LIOs genuflecting before every other original intention?
Most of the LIO laments are made in the form of pleas. “Can we please let LI remain focused and innocent. Sob. Sob.”- That’s what they all reduce to. With pleas come the false mantle of moral authority as though a hapless victim is yelling, a voice in the wilderness. As though the LIO is a lamb among lions. Come on, get over it. LI is absolutely usable in its current form. You don’t like wading through peoples’ stories, political opinions, etc.? Tough. Some of us don’t like wading through each self-serving, self-promoting LI post about business or about your company or about your job. Some of us don’t like wading through the virtue-signaling and fulsome praise that people heap on executives or customers. Do we say, “Send your love letters in the mail versus on LI?”
Nope. So kindly STFU.