[codingdave]

The core problem that LinkedIn solves has nothing to do with all the "social media" style content that plagues the platform. It is a long-term rolodex to be able to talk to former co-workers, while also getting contacted by recruiters (double-edged sword that that is), and for that purpose works just fine, even allowing you to ignore the other warts.

So if you were going to build a competitor, you'd need to get everyone who has built a profile on linkedin and built a 20 year rolodex of their network to all migrate away.

I'm not saying it cannot happen, I'm saying it is not a tech problem, so building a new flavor of the same app and hoping it wins out is an even higher-risk bet than most startups, and therefore does not fall into most people's risk tolerances.

[Aurornis]

> The core problem that LinkedIn solves has nothing to do with all the "social media" style content that plagues the platform.

I feel like a broken record explaining this to people.

The feed that appears when you go to LinkedIn.com is a sideshow. Almost nobody posts to it. Very few people read it. You can (and should!) ignore it and not miss out on anything.

Make a profile. Update it occasionally when you're job searching. Forget about the site until you need it. Hit the unsubscribe button when they e-mail you suggestions.

The exception is people who simply cannot resist getting pulled into a feed and scrolling it. If that's you, I understand why you'd stay off of the website. For everyone else, it's a set it and forget it until you need it kind of website.

That's also why a second website isn't appealing to anyone. They've already gotten past the set-and-forget part. Why would they want to set up a second profile somewhere in a smaller, less useful network? There would have to be some real benefit, not an imagined talking point that disappoints.

[theturtletalks]

We need a better model. Platforms like LinkedIn and Instagram shouldn't own your content. They should just connect to your own personal website. I am building an open-source system where everyone hosts their own site and publishes everything there from short notes, long articles, photos, whatever you want. You can auto-cross-post to those big platforms to keep your reach (Buffer for personal sites), but your site stays the single source of truth.

Once enough people join, we can launch our own open feed that connects directly to the people you follow. No need for the big platforms at all. You pull updates straight from their sites in real time and move freely without losing your content or your audience. It reuses the network effects we already have while giving you true ownership and independence. This also helps people who want to escape feeds entirely: with a personal site, they can subscribe to a simple newsletter, delivered daily, weekly, or monthly with all the updates, so they stay connected without the endless scroll of social media.

[hamirhere]

> We need a better model. Platforms like LinkedIn and Instagram shouldn't own your content.

This reminds me of a post I read the other day, https://overreacted.io/open-social/.

It's by Dan Abramov, the former React.js core contributor.

I created a BlueSky account because of it.

https://bsky.app/profile/hamirhere.bsky.social

[tucaz]

We are about to see what happens when this is reality. 2025 law from Utah goes effective in July 2026 if I’m not mistaken and requires data portability between platforms.

https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0418.html

I’m curious to see impact, adoption, side effects, etc.

[theamk]

Does anyone actually care about linkedin "content"? It seems full of useless articles that only benefit marketers. If all the articles would disappear one day, I doubt many readers would be sad.

(The two-way contact list, on the other hand, is significantly more useful. But you cannot syndicate it, it's tied to the platform)

[swyx]

this is spoken from a permaemployee perspective. linkedin very much changes when you 1) become a hiring manager, 2) become a founder

[Aurornis]

> this is spoken from a permaemployee perspective.

I've spent more time as a hiring manager than IC in recent years. "permaemployee" feels unnecessarily demeaning.

You're right that it's used differently for finding candidates, but I still don't engage with the feed.

At most I've posted that I have a job opening as a post (not a job listing). The problem is that it's heavily biased toward people who spend a lot of time on LinkedIn scrolling the feed, which in my experience isn't the most positive signal for people you want to hire to focus on your work. Similar story for hiring people who spend all day posting on any social media: They tend to be distracted by their social media fixation and it's hard to keep them focused on work communications instead of their current online argument.

[pavel_lishin]

Can you say how it changes?

[nirushiv]

Can you elaborate please? Very curious to hear non-employee perspective

[swyx]

basically instead of treating linkedin like a chore to minmax, you are genuinely trying to reach out to 1) people you are trying to hire, 2) buyers/decisionmakers who have the pain points you solve. linkedin is very good for that.

[pluc]

I think that's kinda what is meant here; LinkedIn could be much more in terms of consistent professional networking, events, learning and even job searching but instead the focus is on algorithmic feed and self-agrandizing which I think is a turn-off to everyone except sociopaths and marketers. Instead at best it's something you for get and at worst it's a tool you're forced into using.

[w10-1]

To emphasize the dynamics: (1) No person will migrate until most of their connectors migrate, and their connectors cannot migrate until everyone does. It's deadlock, for every thread you care about. (2) Automation in job applications and a declining job market have both made networking more essential, so there's no tolerance for lost connections, so you'd also have to solve those problems too before all would switch. (3) Even if users don't like it and could surmount the coordination costs of switching, if companies continue to rely on it, switching would be a career-limiting move; and because companies cannot signal their recruitment strategies without triggering a stampede to game their system, companies tend to keep quiet, so no company would lead an exodus.

Still, no one (outside influencers) likes how work networking and recruitment happens today, so user might do both linkedin and some new system if one created a more effective networking and recruitment mode (e.g., for some well-defined, high-value subset, like recent Stanford MBA's, YC alumni, FinTech, ...).

[estimator7292]

You've literally described every pitch for every social media platform.

This was THE one and only value proposition of Facebook back in the Paleolithic

[notahacker]

yeah. think you'd be most likely to get there by starting off with something else (e.g. collaboration platform for high value vertical that needs more structured comms than LinkedIn) that incidentally has profiles and connections and it just happening to become popular enough for people from adjacent industries to start joining just for the profile visibility and messages...

[gnarlouse]

Making that a public Rolodex is the source of so many social engineering campaigns.

[davedx]

I mean yeah, it's the same problem any new social media site needs to solve