Why is it so hard to share links on LinkedIn?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

LinkedIn’s algorithmic downranking of posts containing external links is seen by many as part of a broader trend of social platforms trying to keep users captive, even at the cost of making basic actions like sharing articles far less effective. Commenters describe LinkedIn as enshittified, spam- and “thought leader”–driven, yet still unavoidable because recruiters and job listings are concentrated there and network effects are hard to escape. Some argue for alternative, open or niche job platforms, but repeated attempts to build better systems have struggled against user preference for “all the jobs” in one place and entrenched hiring practices.

Algorithm, Links, and “Enshittification”

  • Many commenters say LinkedIn downranks posts containing external links to keep users on-platform, similar to other social networks.
  • Some describe elaborate “hacks” (links in comments, obfuscating URLs) that they claim LinkedIn now detects and punishes.
  • Others are skeptical, calling this partly superstition; one person shared stats suggesting no clear penalty for most link domains but poor reach for YouTube.
  • Several note a broader trend: feeds are optimized for engagement and time-on-site, not user goals or the open web.

Job Market, Network Effects, and Why LinkedIn Persists

  • Strong consensus that LinkedIn is hard to dislodge because it has “all the jobs” and “all the recruiters”; users prioritize volume of listings over UX quality.
  • Attempts to build “better” job platforms (more integrity, application limits, guaranteed responses) reportedly struggled to attract enough roles and candidates.
  • Some suggest starting with blue-collar / low-wage markets and moving up; others argue classism and adverse selection (desperate candidates, hard-to-fill roles) make this unlikely.

User Attitudes: Hate, Reliance, and Niche Value

  • A large contingent describes LinkedIn as “crap,” “cancer,” spam-filled, cringe, and user-hostile, yet maintains profiles out of necessity.
  • A minority finds it highly valuable: key source of leads, news in specific industries, academic networking, or a low-maintenance online CV.
  • Several report good results building a professional audience and getting work by posting original, on-platform content regularly.

UX, Dark Patterns, and Privacy Concerns

  • Complaints include: aggressive app-install prompts on mobile, confusing search, noisy notifications, irrelevant feed content, and disappearing critical posts.
  • Historical grievances: contact-list spamming, dark patterns in invitations, public profile exposure, and profile-view notifications that discourage “snooping.”
  • Some employers allegedly monitor employee profiles, pressure them to post positive company content, and treat profile updates as a quitting signal.

Status, Branding, and Psychological Effects

  • Many resent the pressure to “build a personal brand,” chase engagement, and maintain “external eminence.”
  • Connection count (especially 500+) is said to be used as a crude recruiter signal; some play along, others intentionally keep low counts as a filter.
  • Several note LinkedIn intensifies feelings of inadequacy via constant achievement posts and hustle culture content.

Alternatives and Regulation

  • Open/decentralized platforms are proposed, but commenters note they struggle to gain adoption.
  • Some call for regulation against algorithmically penalizing external links on dominant platforms.