back to article 960 LinkedIn employees will be let go... If only there was some kind of 'social network for suits' to assist job hunts

Microsoft's social-media-for-suits platform, LinkedIn, is to axe 960 roles as it makes "strategic changes" to "accelerate the vision of the company". Employees around the world will be affected by these strategic changes, which will hit the company's Global Sales and Talent Acquisitions organisations, according to CEO Ryan …

  1. Smooth Newt Silver badge

    960 LinkedIn employees will be let go.

    I was very surprised - I never imagined it had that many to start with. From the look of the site, a few developers, sales, billing and operations people would about cover it. I wonder what all the rest do.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 960 LinkedIn employees will be let go.

      Judging from the news, so did LinkedIn senior management.

      1. Maximum Delfango
        IT Angle

        Re: 960 LinkedIn employees will be let go.

        ...and I hate to think of how many senior managers there are...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I wonder what all the rest do.

      There's that one that keeps sending me e-mail messages about connections I don't care at all, even after I asked to stop sending me e-mails.

    3. Zippy´s Sausage Factory

      Re: 960 LinkedIn employees will be let go.

      I assume that most of them work on new ways to poke the users with spurious notifications.

      "Your third level contact, Jizhammer Buttflower, recently posted a post you might or might not be interested in." That's the sort of thing I seem to have spent the last few months saying "do not show me this type of notification ever again" to, two or three times a day for the past three months.

      1. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

        Re: 960 LinkedIn employees will be let go.

        Zippy´s Sausage Factory: "Your third level contact,..."

        Isn't _everyone_ a 3rd level contact on Linkedin? I don't have that many contacts, but I do have a few recruiters, so I guess that's where it all links up, but when I check out anyone I come into contact with through work, new people from new companies,... yup, 3rd level.

    4. chivo243 Silver badge

      Re: 960 LinkedIn employees will be let go.

      I just read elsewhere(because it isn't mentioned directly in the Reg write up) that this is only 6% of their work force?? Who'd have thunk it?

    5. grantmasterflash

      Re: 960 LinkedIn employees will be let go.

      LinkedIn had 20,500 employees in May of this year. With 690 million people subscribed to their site someone has to run it. It's the 57th most popular website in the world.

  2. overunder Silver badge

    They do $26.2 billions worth of reach arounds. 26.2 billion.... for LinkedIn?... crazy

  3. gobaskof

    Slightly related gripe:

    Linkedin are the most difficult organisation to contact. If you have never had an account but want them to stop emailing you and to delete any data they somehow hold on you you literally cannot contact them (or I am crap at DuckDuckGo/Google). Any method listed to contact them requires an account, which requires giving them data, which is the exact opposite of what I want to do.

    1. Smooth Newt Silver badge

      Any method listed to contact them requires an account, which requires giving them data, which is the exact opposite of what I want to do.

      How about snail mail to one of the addresses here?

      1. gobaskof

        Yeah that's the plan. I just need to go to the post office to understand how many stamps get a letter to Ireland. Turns out spamming every standard term like - (don't tell me what to do)


        was not a success.

        1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

          There *should* always be valid accounts at and, but whether anyone reads them is anyone's guess. I did this myself when someone used my address to sign up to Pinterest, and I actually got a reply and apology (from one of the founders, I think - it was in their *very* early days).

          1. Zippy´s Sausage Factory

            I do actually seem to recall someone losing their domain once because someone complained to their registrar that one of those domains bounced. Ah, the carefree days of the early internet...

            1. T. F. M. Reader

              Ah, the carefree days of the early internet...

              @Zippy´s Sausage Factory: "someone losing their domain once because someone complained..."

              Not quite the same thing as losing a domain, but in the relatively early days of public Internet and spam (think ~25 years ago when a lot fewer than 100% of members of the public had non-uni accounts and hardly anyone owned a domain) I started getting emails from an MP (not in the UK) who urged me to vote in a particular way in a municipal election. I didn't even live in the city in question and wasn't eligible to vote there. I sent an email to abuse@<ISP> (the ISP was easy to figure out from the personal email address the MP used), and to my surprise I got a thank-you note from the ISP the next day saying the MP's account had been deactivated due to my complaint.

              In those days spam was starting to be a problem and ISPs were quite concerned about being blamed for allowing spammers to operate. Hence the swift reaction.

              The recollection still gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling after all these years. Not because I didn't like the MP's politics, but because a spammer was neutralized (and, in this case, hopefully learned his lesson).

              Spam from LinkedIn is much harder to get rid of. You'd be complaining to an interested party...

          2. Mike 16 Silver badge


            I assume they read this as a bit short of MUST.

            That was apparently the way Adobe treated it when I tried to report porn-spam in less than an hour after giving them a (nonce) email address to register some software. The _only_ documented way to contact them was via registered (paper) mail to a lawyer in Los Angeles (well, using a L.A. post-box )

            Linkedin is not quite that bad, but yeah, pretty much totally useless other than getting solicited by dodgy recruiters. Maybe twice I have been contacted by a former co-worker who had no other way to find me.

            And then there was the resourceful chap who found me on LinkedIn based on my name in the documentation for some software that his company had bought several years before. I was a sub-sub-sub contractor on that, but hey, it was nice to know someone was actually using it, and the docs.

            1. joesomeone

              Re: SHOULD?


              Summarizes the email addresses that SHALL exist, as stipulated in other RFCs and within itself, depending on services that the domain provides.

              1. Mike 16 Silver badge

                Re: SHOULD?

                RFC2142 says (among other things):


                ... mailbox name(es) must be supported, resulting in delivery to a recipient appropriate for the referenced service or role.


                But just because email is "delivered to a recipient..." does not mean that any particular action will be taken by that recipient. I did not read the whole RFC in detail, but I have to wonder if the recipient can be a bot that just replies:

                "Sorry to hear about your problem. If you want anything to actually be done, you will need to send your message via paper mail (certified, and maybe return receipt requested) to the following post-office box which we are assured is occasionally checked by somebody who claims to work for a legal firm. Have a nice day"

                Hmmm, it looks like bots are accounted for:


                Implementations of these well known names need to take account of the expectations of the senders who will use them. Sending back an automatic mail acknowledgement is usually helpful (though we suggest caution against the possibility of "duelling mail robots" and the resulting mail loops).



                1) I would assume that, these days, the "expectations of senders" with any experience of the current internet is that pretty much nothing will be done. Or that the whole process will resemble that of phone-response systems: "Your call is important to us. Please wait for someone to give a damn. Meanwhile, enjoy our music-on-hold rendition of Warner's Ring Cycle, as performed by the Kazoo section of the student orchestra of the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople."

                2) They seem to assume that duelling robots are the main issue (as opposed to "don't care, won't act", the new normal)

                Beware the Leopard!

          3. Diogenes8080

            I was under the impression the RFC requirement for an Abuse address had been deprecated.

    2. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

      Re: If you have never had an account but want them to stop emailing you

      Just change your name by deed poll to Jizhammer Buttflower. Zippy won't mind a few extra notifs.

  4. chivo243 Silver badge

    that's a lot of employees...

    ...didn't realize it was so intensive, aren't there google bots to send the annoying message that you have been a good customer, but we want you to be a better paying customer?

    Glad my profile is barebones, and in a few years it will be meaningless when I quit twiddling bits for a living.

  5. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Real purpose of linkedin

    I assumed it was basically corporate espionage for MSFT

    Lots of people at division X at Google are suddenly updating their resume = division X is getting shut down ?

    All these people with ARM and modem backgrounds at Apple are logged on in the early hours = a new SOC from the fruity firm ?

  6. knarf

    Wonder if they'll get a month free of LinkedIn Premium

    Got to assume they'll need it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020