Coming to terms with the true nature of Microsoft’s LinkedIn business model

[Update: I trashed by LinkedIn account on October 28, 2025, after the post was uploaded]

Although I am still posting on LinkedIn, it is clear that the platform is not very useful, particularly because of Microsoft’s recent shadow-banning of posts that are not aligned with its business model of promoting AI, rewarding cheerleaders, and punishing people who have the temerity to be brutally honest.

I have recently deleted 130-plus recent pending connection requests. These were mostly from people I don’t know and don’t want to or need to know. Many are in the Global South, and probably a good number of these people mistakenly think that I outsource translation work to freelancers. I do not.

Anyway, here are just a few of the salient and mostly annoying characteristics of Microsoft’s LinkedIn that I have observed:

  • LinkedIn promotes AI and promoters of AI.
  • LinkedIn has lately been flooded with slop posts written by AI.
  • The Microsoft LinkedIn algorithm does not work in the interest of its users, but rather (of course, and understandably) to maximize engagement, which turns into income for Microsoft.
  • LinkedIn fills my feed with many posts from people with no noticeable substance, and who breathtaking overestimate the credulity of people who might see their posts.
  • LinkedIn fills my feed with posts about Japan from people who seem to know nothing about Japan, many of these people being in places and in situations from which they will never be able to come to Japan.
  • LinkedIn has many accounts of translators who are in serious denial and delusion, thinking that they won’t be replaced by AI. They are wrong and cannot be reasoned with, this being the reason for my deleting large amounts of writings for translators, as noted elsewhere.
  • LinkedIn throws much more annoying things at me, including ads and suggested posts from LinkedIn coaches working the aisles of desperate LinkedIn users struggling to survive and, even more abhorrently, posts from translators engaged in the business of selling coaching to other translators, thereby furthering the misconception that freelance translation is going to survive. It’s not.
  • LinkedIn rewards phony narcissistic fluff with visibility, but punishes straight-talk posts by shadow-banning them.

There you have it. It is not a pretty picture, and it shows that, on LinkedIn, there’s much less than meets the eye.

Japanese Government-mandated Orthography Chaos

Japan was considerably later than numerous other civilizations in acquiring a written language. When it did, it was basically by adopting Chinese characters to the task of writing Japanese. Those characters are still used, and promoters of schemes to replace them totally with phonetic writing have universally failed. They’re here to stay.

Before the early 20th century, the use of kanji logograms (not ideograms, a long-standing misconception I will write about shortly) in Japan was without much government interference or guidance. It was a lawless land of kanji logograms.

Then came the kanjicrats, with numerous well-meaning attempts to regulate or guide use of kanji, most of which did not reflect—and was ineffective in controlling—the way kanji were used in real life. Some of the highlights of the kanji evolution in Japan are as follows.

1923Joyo Kanji Table May 9
1962 characters, 154 abbreviated characters
1931147 characters removed from and 45 characters added to the Joyo Kanji Table, making it 1858 characters.
November 16, 1946Toyo Kanji Table established by cabinet order (Cabinet Notification/Order)
(1) 1850 characters for use in statutes, public documents, newspapers, and general society)
(2) Proper nouns such as personal names and place names are exceptions, considered separately because of legal and other reasons.
February 16 1948Toyo Kanji onyomi and kunyomi Tables and Toyo Kanji Separate Table established (Cabinet Notification/Order)
(1) Generated to indicate the onyomi and kunyomi to be used going forward for each of the characters in the Toyo Kanji table.
(2) 881 characters (so-called educational characters) of the Toyo Kanji table listed as necessary in education during compulsory education to enable reading and writing.
April 28, 1949Toyo Kanji Character Form Table (Cabinet Notification/Order)
(1) Created to show the standard form of kanji in the Toyo Kanji table
(2) To facilitate and make accurate the reading and writing of characters in the table, organization of simplified characters and unification as much as possible in accordance with printed character forms.
May 25, 1961Personal Name Character Table (Cabinet Notification/Order)
92 Kanji characters indicated for use in proper nouns.
July 30, 1976Added Personal Name Character Table (Cabinet Notification/Order)
28 Characters added for use in personal names.
October 1, 1981Joyo Kanji Table (Cabinet Notification/Order)
(1) 95 Characters added to the Toyo Kanji table for use in statutes, public documents, newspapers, magazines, broadcasting, and daily life in writing Japanese, making the character count 1945
(2) Place names and personal names are treated as exceptions.
(3) The Joyo Kanji list of characters should be used as a reference in selecting names for children.
December 8, 2000(Response from the National Language Council)
Non-listed character list of characters for printing established (1022 characters) as standard printing character forms. JIS standard JIS X 0213 modified accordingly.
Subsequent Addition of Characters for Personal Names
198154 characters added.
February 2004Several characters added, making the total number of characters for personal names became 290.
September 27, 2004-9-27488 characters added + 205 characters added (*) Of the 205 characters, 195 are old forms of Joyo Kanji, 10 are the old forms of characters for personal names.
This makes the current number of personal name kanji is 290 + 488 + 205, for a total of 983.
As of 2010, the list of Joyo Kanji includes 2136 characters.

All of that said, while the print and broadcast media (particularly NHK) are careful not to use unlisted characters, there are numerous instances of Japanese writers ignoring the above guidelines. Even Japanese patent specifications—arguably public documents—provide numerous examples of characters not included in the current Joyo Kanji list of 2136 characters. And, of course, most literate Japanese, which includes a higher portion of the population than in cultures with ostensibly “easier” languages, are able to read and use many characters beyond the official lists.

Another aspect of kanji that I have noticed is that, while many anglophones comment that kanji are so difficult that young students are unduly burdened, I have almost never heard such comments from native Japanese speakers, outside of educators. Kanji are just accepted by the general public, like the air around us, with no complaints heard or reforms demanded, except perhaps from lingering kanjicrats in government agencies.

Front-loaded Quality: Not much back then, and nothing much has changed.

In Japanese-to-English translation, the need to cut costs and the long-held folk beliefs by some native Japanese speakers have often taken precedence over the value of front-loading quality into the translation process.

Back in the late 1970s, most Japanese-to-English translation was done by native Japanese speakers (NJSs), with varying degrees of ability to translate and to write in usable English. There is strong evidence that the demographic makeup of at least the humans still translating remains largely the same, particularly when you consider in-house translators in Japanese entities.

Those translations were often then subjected to what was then (and even now, apparently) called a “native check,” which very often, particularly back then, was characterized as a “brush up” performed by a native English speaker (NES) who would sometimes not be Japanese-capable, making referring to the source text impossible and meaningless. The salient characteristic of this workflow was that frontloading of quality was not part of the translation process. Quick and cheap, followed by repair was the norm.

Numerous hapless foreigners were employed in such work in Japan, some were English teachers, others were recruited from among in-house foreigners working in Japanese companies, but who were not necessarily hired as translators or editors. They just had the misfortune to be standing around when a translation needed a “native check.”

As they became more numerous, NES translators started receiving more JA-EN translation work. There was still, however, a lingering uneasiness among many Japanese clients that a non-Japanese person couldn’t actually understand all the nuances of something written in Japanese. And could they really read the characters? I have been asked as much at translation conferences, even after it was clear that I am a JA-EN translator. One such encounter happened when I attended a translation gathering of the Japan Translation Federation as the head of Japan Association of Translators.

Perhaps more importantly as a business reality, however, NES translators were considerably more expensive than their NJS counterparts, so the process of making a rough translation and having it repaired continued for years. Again, front-loading of quality took a back seat to other concerns.

Decades went by and the number of NES translators who could convince clients of their capabilities gradually grew.

Enter machine translation, years before the AI hype. This gradually turned many translation opportunities for freelancers into opportunities to repair not poor translations done by an NJS human, but rather the output of an MT system, resulting in their earnings tanking even further, as translation consumers demanded cost cutting.

What is happening is that professional humans are being replaced in the translation process by collections of software commands with insufficiencies that are supposed to be fixed by professionals humans, but at a fraction of the earnings that were possible when those humans were still being trusted to translate. Post-editing repair crews come to the rescue. Many translators are not eager to take on such work, but numerous translators have few other options, particularly ones in mid-career or later. And that is where freelance translation sits as I write this.