Ah Linkedin, the social network every professional has to have and almost no one participates in unless they're looking for or offering a job.
A real cyber security specialist only has shill accounts for osint and if they do have a real account, they definitely don't share shit like this on a public account.
WTAF? I've never been more glad that I only remember to look at LinkedIn a couple times a year.
I recently came dangerously close to having to use LinkedIn as my job was up in the air for awhile due to RTO shenanigans. I knew it was always a site for shilling but when I reactivated my account to update my resume, my God the amount of corporate back patting was insane. People I knew IRL as down to earth hardworking folks, were shilling so hard for a company that couldn't give two fucks less who they are and were using every buzz word from the white-collar, salaried company bootlicker playbook in every post.
Now, I know that's "the game" and if you want to get ahead you have to play, so I can't blame them for grinding, but at the same time, fuck that. I guess I'm fine being where I am and never moving up because I refuse to play that BS.
It is facebook but for the office. And unfortunately there is a lot going on beyond job hunting.
It’s mostly an HR circlejerk and people who make their jobs their entire personality. Don’t get me wrong, there are people in my field who post valuable stuff on there, but they are a tiny minority.
I always considered it more to be a kind of reverse tinder. It's the platform where women contact me to tell me they like what they see and to ask me for my phone number to have a talk. And once they have it, they won't leave me alone.
It's how I feel it must actually be like for women on actual dating platforms. Minus the unsolicited pics.
I don't even know why there are recruiting companies on there when companies can just post their job openings and do it themselves. If they truly believe these recruiting offices are vetting candidates.... I was once offered a job for an actual architect when I was a solution architect in IT....I told him I'd love to give it a try, even though I've never designed houses before. He didn't even reply :(
LinkedIn, the social network made by and for the PMC.
I feel like I'm a class traitor for not having a profile on there.
•
I feel like the Fediverse hasn't yet reached the Eternal September moment, and I'm happy for that. A smaller footprint means we get to have our own culture.
On the other hand, even though it means losing this culture, I would like to see greater general adoption of the fediverse and decentralized social media in general. Sure, there will likely be some big-name domains serving fediverse instances, the same way email is primarily served by Gmail et al, but anyone should be able to spin up their own instance and interact as well. I don't believe Internet communication should be locked behind various walled gardens, and people should re-acclimatize themselves to a version of the Internet where anyone can host and contribute.
I'm curious on how a federation would handle an Eternal September. If we [the community] play our cards right, we could get "newbie instances" - in those the newbies would either adapt themselves to the rest of the culture of the Fediverse or forge their own, in a non-conflicting way with the others. It would be kind of cool.
Same here
Well said
I want more people in the fediverse too
But not at the expense of this culture too
And yet, all those bigger bubbles were once 1.5 million large at one point. You have to start somewhere.
Mastodon has 13 million.
Not sure where you got the stat for Fediverse as a whole on that.
https://fediverse.observer/stats
Probably using the monthly active users.
13mil seems to be total users.
It does look like Mastodon has around 9 million itself, that's a nice size. It also makes this graph wrong.
9 million is total user accounts. Not monthly active user accounts. Facebook has 3 billion monthly active user accounts. The chart is showing active monthly user accounts.
•
The link has a graph for monthly active users that says 1.7 million. Not sure why the pie chart shows something different though.
I see reckon it shows there are L'1 of us but I dunno I could be reading this upside down. I'll get back to you.
It's a fine picture of various platforms, but I'd have trouble calling Twitch, Discord, and YouTube "social media." Discord is basically IRC with more bells and whistles and no one ever called IRC "social media."
I miss mid-90s IRC. That was far more social than any ‘social’ media I’ve experienced since.
Social media wasn't a thing back when IRC was big but it did basically the same as modern social media sites do today: people connected and talked. And I would argue that Twitch/Discord/YouTube do different things than Facebook or Twitter in the end all of those places are there to connect and talk about stuff (and to harvest money and data).
I'd wager the majority of them are dead/inactive accounts. I remember graduating from undergrad and thinking I had to make a LinkedIn account to get a job, used it for maybe 45 minutes, and never touched it again. I feel like this is the case with a lot of people
I'm suprised as well. But it says monthly active users. So I'm guessing they count distinct logins per month, which a dead account can't do. I'd guess it's probably bots looking for keywords and building profiles for recruiters.
Nearly 1/6th of the earth’s population are recruiters.
Do you know 6 people? One of them could be a recruiter
YouTube is vulnerable due to their low payouts and high ad insertion. You’d think someone like Amazon would be trying to steal some of that huge market share with a competing service.
•
Amazon doesn't want to start a division that's essentially guaranteed to be unprofitable for the foreseeable future
I work for Amazon corporate. I can emphatically agree that right now, and for the past few post-COVID years, Amazon's only obsession is near term quarterly profits for stakeholders by any means necessary. To hell with long term investments. They are slowly sabotaging themselves internally with a lot of unpopular and frankly idiotic and nonsensical decisions that will ultimately result in cascading failure after failure. The enshittification continues.
•
If you want me to prove a negative, I can't do that.
Youtube isn't profitable. Youtube has never been profitable. Frankly that's incredibly unlikely to change. Amazon isn't going to try to break into a space that is unprofitable, would require a monumental effort to actually draw creators (since just offering big creators money clearly didn't work, see mixer or anyone else), and requires astronomical amounts of data storage even for AWS. They're especially not going to do that when they just spent the last however many years watching multiple people do a much smaller task, take on twitch (again, mixer and the like), with zero success.
Would I love to see a not completely awful proper alternative to Youtube? Yes. It's that going to come from Amazon? No. And no, peertube isn't the answer either, and won't be unless there's an easy path to monetization for existing creators and data storage magically becomes free
Not to mention, Amazon already owns multiple online video services with Prime Video and Twitch. The intersection of those two already cover a bunch of those bases, so you're talking about standing up an entirely new unprofitable service that needs it's own monolithic infrastructure and will end up competing with your own services, in order to try to take a third slice away from YouTube.
It's just no where near worth it. If you think Amazon has any business competing with YouTube, you don't understand A) how the market works B) how much of a technical undertaking that is C) how much lift it would take to get a reasonable number of creators to keep the platform active D) how financially unviable the product is. Even one of those on its own would be a serious dissuasion from doing so, but there are many reasons not to do this.
Amazon already has an ad sales division through FreeVee. They also already have the storage infrastructure. It would probably be a good fit.
•
I think you're underestimating the sheer amount of infrastructure that would be needed for a proper youtube competitor by about an order of magnitude. Even twitch pales in comparison to the sheer amount of data being processed and stored
As someone posted, this is straight up wrong. Why would you source wikipedia? https://fediverse.observer/stats
- Mastodon is almost 9 million/month
- Lemmy is a little over 2 million/month
- you can block them
- Reddit is mirroring a shit ton of stuff from twitter, youtube, etc.
- All social media has a lot of bots, I'm betting there are a lot less here because we're not on many people's radars yet.
What you say is true, but the person you replied to has a point. That site has nearly as many accounts as the rest of Lemmy combined, and most of the sites those bot users post to hardly leave any room for genuine discussion from real Lemmy users. You won't get a reply from any user registered to alien.top. It's basically Reddit with a coat of paint.
To me it's a misrepresentation to include alien.top users as part of Lemmy's userbase.
What I'm saying is, that all of the other social media platforms use bot stats as active monthly users and we probably have way less of them.
I’m actually surprised by how large the fediverse is. I thought it was more like 50,000 at most.
And yet Facebook is the one platform I use the least often. I just don't see the appeal, let alone why I'd ever give a flying crap about what other people are doing. I only have a facebook page because my other family members use it to post and keep in touch.
That's kind of my point, whoever made this doesn't know what they're talking about. So who knows if they did anything else correctly, even though the only other thing is pulling user accounts from Wikipedia.
•
Why would a service that doesn't federate yet be included with the fediverse. If/when they do, sure. Until then, calling them part of the fediverse is really just being pedantic.