I'd appreciate it if you'd take a second to retract.
yes?
The top comment expressed quite clearly discouragement that this attitude of negativity to certification would affect their job prospects.
Yes?
My comment line that I'm presuming you object to is
"Whilst there are people that, unfortunately, take the attitude in the article, I think that there's a load of others that take a more balanced approach and recognise some of the value of certifications."
Didn't mention you, wasn't intending to mention you, referred to the article which clearly takes the position that certifications are actively harmful to the industry, a position that I disagree with.
If you feel I've insulted you, I apologise for that, but I'm afraid I'm currently a bit unsure as to why you feel insulted.
The article takes what I think to be an overly absolute position in suggesting that certifications are actually harmful to the industry.
I'm not suggesting that you are opposed to new talent, I've not said that anywhere.
What I've said is that I think that cerifications can be useful for newcomers in demonstrating effort/ability in a field.
I think that those certifications can be useful specifically in scaling entry to the industry (I'm not saying they need to be expensive, heck I'd love it if they were free, but someone has to pay for the effort required).
The problem with leaving individual companies to review every candidate from scratch is that it's a huge waste of effort. If you're starting a SOC and have to fill 50 spots and get 2000 CVs across your desk, you realistically are not going to be able to take an approach of manually interviewing every single candidate.
Now and I'm sure you know more than I , that doesn't apply to high-end security testing companies, but different types of roles require different approaches.