I recommend we let LinkedIn implode under the weight of useless spam and indifferent ownership.

Network directly with engineers where they spend time online. Not recruiters in purpose built HR portals.

This is probably a good case to remind people: You ("engineers who want to network") are a small fraction of the LinkedIn userbase. You cannot begin to accurately grok how the vast majority of users use and feel about LinkedIn. Your opinions are valid (and I share them fully). But be careful not to assume that the way _you_ interact with LinkedIn is universally shared.

Who are the predominant users of LinkedIn then? Marketing mostly, or is it recruiters? Startup founders? How do you measure "activity" in this scenario - is it public postings or are we including the private messages that people send about jobs?

I see a lot of useless posts end up on my feed - self congratulations and a lot of what equates to a press release for some product - but those have to target a user base of some kind that isn't there to just do that or it ends up being bots talking to bots (effectively), which is arguably bad for the company (e.g. bad for their valuation).

Seems like the largest userbase are mid-career white collar workers, even if they don't make up the majority (or even a plurality) of the public posts/interactions happening.

Similar to a gacha mobile game you need some minimum amount of userbase to create the environment where "whales" will be encouraged to engage with their money - in this case that's advertising revenue through sponsored posts and premium accounts.

Every college student in the world has a LinkedIn account, whether they want one or not. That's a gigantic userbase of engaged users.

That seems unlikely, given that any EU institution unnecessarily sharing personal details with LinkedIn would be breaking the law.

Users. Not necessarily engaged. Anecdotally, nobody I've ever known uses LinkedIn unless they're job-hunting.

Good points, but I would suggest that just because the swamp-dwellers like it that way, does not mean it isn't a swamp.

I very much minimize my time there, because it is the spammiest, clingiest "social" network I've tried. I abandoned Facebook too, but there is at least marginal usefulness on LI, so I log in periodically.

I'd say that those who engage most are either directly recruiting or marketing, or self-annointed "thought leaders". At least the recruiters are unashamed in their role there. I cringe most at the thought leader types who apply the term to themselves. Like "hacker" or "guru", the term should usually be given by other people.

Generally most people don't even get messaged at all on LinkedIn.

One CEO I know mentioned they only hire recruiters for engineers. Other slots are filled in other ways. Some are with job posts, others might be with referrals.

Another mentioned that engineers are like gold. A valuable commodity that's mineable via a process, enough of a commodity that everyone agrees on value.

Yes the language is intentionally constrained to “network with other engineers.”

Thanks, I guess, for suggesting I keep a perspective I already had in mind (as evidenced by the constrained choice of words).

> Network directly with engineers where they spend time online

Where would that be? I wouldn't recommend HN for networking purposes.

Forums and chat rooms related to technologies you have experience with, want to learn. Slack and Discord have quite a few.

Some like to complain about projects using Slack or Discord because they’re not open and can’t be archived publicly but really who is pulling value from old IRC logs today? Nostalgic lizard brain is all that is.

> Some like to complain about projects using Slack or Discord because they’re not open and can’t be archived publicly but really who is pulling value from old IRC logs today?

When projects use Slack or Discord (or, for that matter, IRC) as their primary support channel it becomes a lot more painful to search online for solutions to problems.

TeamBlind

Discourse on Blind makes HN look like the Athenian Assembly.

Agreed. Still beats vapid LinkedIn feed.

Yes. I have to ruthlessly prune anyone who reposts chaff... which is sadly a non-trivial number of individuals.

I tend to agree with this.

Spending time reporting issues and care-taking Microsoft is a waste of time.

Don't bother doing things for Microsoft that Microsoft is perfectly capable of doing itself. Nothing is stopping Microsoft from solving problems like this themselves. They don't give a shit.

If Microsoft had not acquired LinkedIn in 2016, it might still be led by people whose lives depended on the health and integrity of the site. Microsoft effectively poisoned Linkedin.

I wonder whether by compromised you mean:

1. compromised in the spy movie sense of them voluntarily passing information to the scammers (potentially for money)

2. compromised in the IT security sense of their accounts or computers having been hacked

3. some superset of 1. and 2.

> in the spy movie sense

It’s not just in the movies.

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/03/a-closer-look-at-the-lap...

> Microsoft says LAPSUS$ — which it boringly calls “DEV-0537” — mostly gains illicit access to targets via “social engineering.” This involves bribing or tricking employees at the target organization or at its myriad partners, such as customer support call centers and help desks.

> “Microsoft found instances where the group successfully gained access to target organizations through recruited employees (or employees of their suppliers or business partners),” Microsoft wrote.

Recruited employees?

Or people they unknowingly hired?

Small distinction?

It's not a small distinction. An organization deliberately trying to inject an asset into your company to do X or Y is a different problem to solve than an existing employee who was coopted. And the co opted case has a different problem in one motivated by gain vs one motivated by threats agains them.

Recruited to join in the scheme against their employer.

Probably simpler than both of those, more as in - there are allegations/comments suggesting that there may be individuals holding trusted positions who may not be as trustworthy as one would hope (based on the potential pathways by which malicious parties may have identified the OP).

Insider threat is still a significant concern to companies, and were one representing Microsoft one might want to at least take a peek at what happened and make sure nothing untoward is occurring.

Standard Disclaimers apply. I am not a Microsofty, nor do I play one on TV. Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear.

My primary take-home from having DOD/DOE security clearances, and having to sit through historical case studies every 3 months about security breaches, is that every DOD/DOE security lapses and espionage event in history were "trusted insiders" doing the deed.

Physical security was long ago solved by pre-20th century tech like locks and security guards. No, it was always a trusted insider. There's no reason to assume that is any different with social media companies.

I’m not sure I understand the value of reporting this to Microsoft? Wouldn’t it be better to submit an online tip to law enforcement? Is Microsoft doing law enforcement activity now?

LinkedIn is a Microsoft product, so they would have the ability and interest in understanding what broke here.

What broke is probably their internal trust..

It's the "probably" that they want to investigate and try to get to a "almost certainly"

As huhwat said - LinkedIn is part of Microsoft now. As such it is within the auspices of the MSRC

Not OP, but if you are from LinkedIn or affiliated in any way I hope you understand the apperance of you as a fresh account with 2 karma just inquiring for the case # must seem odd and not entirely legit. In any case, it raises a set of red flags for me.

80 days ago isn't new enough to be unduly alarming, surely?

Certainly old enough to know that HN doesn't have DM capability unless it's a spam account.

There's no DM on HN.

Do it anyway! :P

Highly strange post here.