"Recently, a wave of posts on Linked has captured attention - particularly from women. Many shared that they conducted a simple experiment: change the gender on their profile from "female" to "male" and observe what happens. According to those who tried it, engagement on their posts skyrocketed. The reaction was explosive. For many women, the results confirmed a long-held suspicion: that LinkedIn algorithm was suppressing their content and rewarding others. Their test - although unscientific - felt like proof that men were receiving preferential treatment on the platform."
"LinkedIn has since responded with a blog post by Sakshi Jain, stating that "our algorithm and AI systems do not use demographic information (such as age, race, or gender) as a signal to determine the visibility of content, profile, or posts in the Feed." Jain went on to speculate that after their own testing of the posts involved in the various user experiments, the brand found other reasons that could explain why different by similar posts achieve different levels of engagement. She wrote, "Our AI systems and algorithms consider hundreds of other signals to determine what content appears in your Feed, including many signals from your own profile (such as your position or industry), network, and activity.""
Many women reported that changing their LinkedIn profile gender from female to male led to dramatically higher post engagement, prompting concerns about preferential treatment. LinkedIn denied using demographic signals such as age, race, or gender to determine feed visibility. LinkedIn stated that algorithms evaluate hundreds of other signals, including profile details like position and industry, network connections, and user activity, which can produce differing reach for similar posts. LinkedIn cautioned that side-by-side snapshots of individual feeds are not representative or equal in reach and do not automatically indicate bias. Public reaction to the response was mixed.
Read at Forbes
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]