[johny115]

Your feed is made up of the content written by people you're connected to.

If you see only the cringe posts then you follow the wrong people. I am in marketing and so I follow lot of great growth people, content marketers, copywriters, performance folks and as I am not a deep expert in all these sub-categories of marketing I quite often find super valuable content posted by my connections. Frameworks, templates, good ideas. Stuff I can use. The competitiveness of the environment forces people to post lot of good stuff for free to get engagement, they otherwise would never share.

And in reverse if you post there too and want your content to be read and liked, then you should have only connections relevant to your content. Ie dont have HR connections and then post about coding, instead have mostly dev connections. Because LinkedIn algo tests your post by showing it to only small part of your connections, if your post about coding gets shown to HR people, nobody will like it and thus your post will end up failing the test and LinkedIn will kill its visibility.

In short. Don't blame LinkedIn, blame your managment of your connections.

[PickledHotdog]

I expect LinkedIn is seen as great by marketers because it's effectively a marketing platform.

There are, however, lots of people in lots of jobs who find the whole show distasteful and inauthentic. Like it's a brown-nosers convention where two-faced suckholes get to be performative. And that includes some marketing types too.

No amount of changing who you follow is going to change that fundamental quality for some.

[johny115]

But that's not unique to LinkedIn is it? That is every non-anonymous social platform after few years into its conception. Facebook, Instagram, even TikTok is about showing off.

I don't like it either, but its just natural. It's like complaining that sun comes up every day. You need to take it for what it is - these platforms do have some good content but, its strongly biased, its only the positive stuff. Either its positive content of low quality or positive content of high quality. That's all. If you understand that its fine.

I am not sure why some people think it could be any different. If you think its so easy to show of vulnerability then go to NY Times Square and take of your clothes and stand there naked for an hour. Or ok less dramatic version, record a YouTube video about how you're sometimes selfish person, how you sometimes cheat in your work, how you're asshole to people and post it on all your social profiles. You won't. Therefore you are part of the problem. Because you are not participating in negative, real or vulnerable content.

All these things I mentioned are human, none of us are saints and we have moments when we are little selfish or just moments when we are weak, but we don't what others to know.

If you want some honesty, you need the anonymity, 4chan, reddit, hacker news and what not. There is no way around it.

We dont expect strangers in professional setting to be extremely real, vulnerable and personal to hundreds of their colleagues, so why should it be expected from LinkedIn?

LinkedIn is shallow, but you can still get some technical information if you can get over the fact that the stories there are overblown and cherrypicked. Same as Instagram and everything tied to your name and connected to real people you know is.

[seattle_spring]

> Your feed is made up of the content written by people you're connected to

This isn't true at all. Your feed is made up of content your connections interact with. Likes, comments, etc.

Since so many people interact with vapid and empty "live laugh love" style garbage like Dan Price or B Burns, it's inevitable for anyone's feed to be full of kiss-ass nonsense without hands on curation.