Category: High-functioning Curmudgeonism

One algorithm leads to another.

[Originally posted on LinkedIn on January 16, 2025]

Disclaimer: I don’t have a LinkedIn account to find clients or look for a job, since my client demographic is essentially absent from LinkedIn, and I am not on LinkedIn looking for a job.

Now, with that out of the way:

The often-heard claim that LinkedIn is a business-related platform is delusional if we are talking about people seeking work.

There are people looking for employment on LinkedIn, but all that Microsoft’s LinkedIn is doing is using their algorithm to give users the opportunity to face yet other algorithms, operated by what they think are potential employers.

They will need first to game the Microsoft LinkedIn algorithm and then will further need to game a hiring algorithm to even get an interview, which apparently is a rare occurrence.

Those games are generally meaningless, and desperation and delusion are the only reasons many people hang onto LinkedIn, which is demonstrably just another social media platform, owned and run by Microsoft for much the same reasons Zuckerberg owns and runs Facebook and the reasons Musk owns and runs X. And we know those reasons, don’t we? Enough said.

To Don’t Lists

Although I have often been fond of making “to do” lists, with items I check off as I do them, I have recently come to see the value in making “to don’t” lists.

You simply make a list of things, including things that you should do, but that you know in your heart you will not do. Then you proceed not to do them. You can check them off as you don’t do them, but that is optional.

It is best to keep a record of your to undone don’t do items, because you will need to include these in your next to don’t list, thereby avoiding accidentally doing some of them. Consistency is a virtue.

This is an elegant solution to a longstanding problem. You enjoy a sense of achievement without having to expend any effort or spend any time.

Publishing of Intellectual Property without Permission: It’s unlawful in most places.

Publicly sharing a stolen image in a social media post that consists almost entirely of the stolen image is unlawful in most legal jurisdictions.

Adding credit to the originator doesn’t make it lawful without first getting permission to publish, and many such “credits” just name (often by a meaningless pseudonym or platform name) the immediately previous thief who unlawfully published the image.

All of this is a win for platform owners like Mark Zuckerberg and a loss for the universe of people still purporting to know right from wrong. Zuckerberg is guilty of countless violations of ethical common sense and doesn’t live in that universe. And his sucking up to and funding Mango Mussolini is another indication of a problem that needs fixing and is a reason I left his platform recently.