[deadbabe]

I asked a manager about this, the policy is that we do not need to differentiate between bots and people who sound similar to bots: both are considered low quality content/engagement. Delete them.

Seems like wherever they delete bots, they will in the end, delete human beings.

[wat10000]

That's what happens when a business is built on getting a tiny amount of value per user from a vast number of users. There's essentially no incentive to treat any individual user well, and no resources to make it happen even if they wanted to. This becomes more and more problematic as our lives revolve more and more around such businesses.

[deadbabe]

Silly commenters, mass audiences are for influencers, but go ahead and write your little bandwagoned take so you can feel heard.

[emgeee]

I never really thought about this perspective but in some ways it makes sense. I think the ironic part is that LinkedIn now provides built-in AI tools that make you sound more like a bot.

Maybe they could fingerprint slop generated with they tools and allow it through to incentivize upgrading

[soco]

But "our" bots are always the good ones. Why does this sound like literature...

[JohnMakin]

My problem with this approach is what metrics are you using to determine whatever I am doing is "low quality?" On LinkedIn specifically, I barely ever post "content" publicly - I use it to network with recruiters and read technical articles mostly. It's completely opaque and will catch users doing absolutely nothing wrong or "low content," maybe they are on the spectrum or disabled in a way that makes their user clicks look weird. No managers ever consider these things, it's always like "oh well, fuck em"

[oceanplexian]

Actually, they will only delete humans, because the bots can already far outpace low quality content posted by humans.