LinkedIn is easy to mock because it often feels ridiculous. Feeds are lined with posts of people claiming corporate prestige with saturated jargon that no one really understands. Layoffs become “new chapters”, and desperation is portrayed as being “open to new opportunities”. Ordinary employment is narrated as a moral awakening, with those who can’t follow the cryptic lexicon as simply not being on their level. The language is so polished it begins to feel inhuman, as if every post is passed through a motivational filter and carefully stripped of any real insight. But the absurdity of LinkedIn is not the most interesting thing about it. The surface-level jeering about its content and audience – while amusing – overshadows the more serious question of why people feel compelled to perform this way at all. In the United States, work has never been just a job. One’s profession has been treated as evidence of character, discipline, education, and personal worth. LinkedIn takes this philosophy and gives it a platform and a name. It repackages the worker into a public profile, an SEO project, and hosts a space to permanently market employability. It seems the point is not just being suited or capable for the job, because having the right requirements and a well-established CV is outdated in this age of corporate recruitment. Instead, you need to accompany this with a digital, legible mandate with at least 500 connections, or else who are you? The platform is the epitome of late-stage capitalism. It not only connects people to jobs, but it also teaches people how to behave in a labour market where employability itself is theatrical. In 2025, LinkedIn reported 1.2 billion members globally and $17.8 billion in revenue, a staggering amount in any case. Following suit with many other social platforms, they have introduced new AI tools for job seekers, hirers, and sales. This is important because not only do you have to perform within this stagnant job market, but you are also judged on this by AI. Reuters reported that LinkedIn’s AI hiring agents were projected to bring in $450 million annually by “helping” recruiters identify suitable profiles across the network. This shifts the focus entirely. In this respect, the game is no longer about experience; it’s about SEO and corporate literacy. The worker is not simply applying for jobs. They are processed as a signal, not a human; transformed into a set of keywords, a network, and a history of ambition within the confines of AI-approved jargon. The introduction of AI in workplaces across the U.S. has undeniably reduced job openings and is now cutting into the recruitment sector. Not only did you lose your job to AI, but you were denied your next one because you didn’t meet the lexical quota. To Karl Marx, this advent is unsurprising. He argued that capitalism turns labour power itself into a commodity: the worker must sell their capacity to work in order to survive. LinkedIn expertly shows how far that logic has travelled and how conceited the job market has become. The worker is no longer selling only time, skill, or effort. They are expected to sell personality, resilience, digital consistency, network capabilities, and a narrative of constant self-improvement. One becomes part of the package. This commodification is the real poison of the platform. It makes the crisis of work, or lack thereof, a flaw of self-presentation. If you cannot get a job, the implied solution is to optimise your profile. If nobody replies, message better. If you are invisible, post more. If none of the above work, you can buy an “affordable” subscription of around $40 a month to help boost your presence. The subscription becomes even darker when it’s realised that visibility has become monetised. Of course, capitalism and the ruling class have always understood this premise, as has society. But LinkedIn has attempted to remove these barriers in a way that fills its own pocket instead. The premium subscription advertises AI-powered tools for job searches and profile optimisation, along with InMail, profile view numbers, personalised insights, and access to “top applicant” jobs. There is something dystopian about a labour market in which workers are already forced to compete for attention, then offered, as a necessity, a plethora of paid tools to become more visible in the competition. These class politics are not subtle. Despite LinkedIn’s attempts to profit from class visibility, they present as a neutral space for opportunity. They reward those who already understand the architecture of professional culture, and who have polished profiles, institutional confidence, internship language, and established networks. A working-class person may boast intelligence, be capable, reliable, and perfectly suited for a role, yet still be punished for not knowing how to read themselves in the approved style. Pew Research Centre found that LinkedIn’s use in the U.S. is sharply divided by education. In 2024, a report showed that 53% of Americans with at least a bachelor’s degree said they use LinkedIn. This compares sharply to the 28% who have attended college but have not obtained a bachelor’s degree. Lastly, there were 10% of those who had high school degrees or less. This disparity paints an illustrative picture. If LinkedIn becomes part of how opportunity is accessed, then paradoxically, the unequal access to LinkedIn’s culture becomes yet another class barrier. This is why LinkedIn is not just bad, it’s an active obstacle for those trying to find work in modern society. It is bad because it reveals a labour market that increasingly demands shallow performance. It is bad because it asks people to translate fear into marketable self-growth and instability into ambition. It turns structural insecurity into an expensive subscription. The cruellest part is that opting out becomes even harder. Online resources are more essential than ever for American job seekers. Pew found that as early as 2015, a large majority of recent US job seekers had solely used online resources to look and apply for work. The point is that digital presence has
By Adia May
If you’ve been on the internet at all over the past two years, you’ve probably heard the word “brainrot.” Colloquially, “brainrot” is a collection of social media slang and content such as “6-7,” “rizz,” “gyatt,” “skibidi,” “fanum tax” etc., even expanding to “Italian Brainrot” which refers to specific characters such as “Ballerina Capuccina,” “Tung Tung Tung Sahur,” etc. This type of content is associated with short-form videos, AI-generated content, and doomscrolling and the harmful psychological effects it has, especially on the younger generation. According to Oxford University Press, “brainrot” is broadly defined as “the supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of overconsumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging.” This content is deemed unchallenging because it relies on repetitive slang that lacks any actual meaning. For example, if you ask a sixth grader what “6-7” is, they will not have an answer for you, because it does not actually mean anything. “Brainrot” is particularly associated with Gen Alpha: those born between 2010 and 2024. It’s no secret that devices have become heavily integrated into our lifestyles, and that this is especially true for Gen Alpha, who grew up with an unprecedented exposure to technology. Across the United States, teachers have expressed their worries regarding the behavior and educational progress of these children. According to The Annie Casey Foundation, only 30% of Gen Alpha fourth graders read proficiently as of 2024. In the classroom, iPads and computers have become mainstream, even in elementary schools; written assignments and textbooks seem to have become a thing of the past. Short-form content and a dependence on constant stimulation from devices has resulted in a severe lack of focus and decreased attention spans, which has posed serious issues in schools. Furthermore, concerns about plagiarism and cheating have reached an alarming high, as students offload even the most basic assignments to Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT. Yes, the internet can be a great resource for information and learning, but this is not the case when it comes to the majority of short-form content, such as what Instagram reels and TikTok mostly consists of. However, the truth is that “brainrot” in our society goes deeper than just Gen Alpha internet slang on social media. Make no mistake, the critical thinking crisis is not exclusive to our youth. It seems like thought-provoking media is near extinct, either removing nuance through oversimplification, watering down the supposed “message,” or lacking any message at all. This isn’t to say that there is no value in entertainment that provides people an escape from their everyday lives; the issue appears when the vast majority of content does not require any type of intellectual activity to consume it. In fact, movies, television, and art can be an excellent way to present new ideas and provoke discussion. However, we cannot ignore the fact that modern media often enables us to bypass critical thinking, instead of prompting it. Additionally, due to the addictive nature of social media algorithms, adult internet users (intentionally or not) can easily slip into reliance on social media content to feed them information and tell them what they should care and not care about. Consuming a constant stream of content, especially low quality content, can lead to a dependence on instant gratification and a shorter attention span. As a result, people become less inclined to think critically, and more inclined to continue to consume the content they have become accustomed to. Consequently, deciding on things as simple as what to wear, what to eat, etc. are outsourced to the algorithm. In other words, you don’t need to think when your favorite content creator does it for you. Furthermore, there is an ongoing trend of being “nonchalant” on social media, through which people are encouraged to avoid thinking about things that challenge their existing beliefs or provoke negative feelings. This apathy toward discomfort is incredibly dangerous, as it discourages thoughtfulness and empathy toward the issues that require it the most, instead enabling people to dismiss things as “not that deep.” This has a vast array of negative effects on things from political participation to relationships. As technology becomes more and more influential in people’s lives and artificial intelligence becomes increasingly accessible, it is imperative for us to be cognizant of how it affects our distinctly human ability to think critically. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Madeleine Harp
A 19-year-old Cornell University student, Austin Franco, was doxxed after rejecting a summer internship at VryfID, a Jewish New York-based tech startup. The heightened reaction reportedly stemmed from Franco stating that his reason for not taking the internship was that he was “Not interested in working for a Jew.” In a now-deleted post, Franco explained that his past experiences with Jews were not “pleasant,” and that, in his personal and professional experiences, Jews were tribalistic and vengeful, and tended to ruin and bully others who opposed them. The Jewish founders of the company, brothers Gabe and Aiden Einhorn, posted screenshots of the rejection on social media, publicly naming the student, sparking online controversy and debate. Einhorn stated that he did not “want to ruin his life,” but instead wanted to “raise awareness” of antisemitism. Franco went on to state in response to the situation: “I am sure that if you indicated you didn’t want to work for someone who was White or Christian, this would not have blown up.” He claims that the actions by Einhorn and the Jewish community, which have uprooted his personal life, vindicated his concerns that “Jews do not work with others politely.” Several online sources have also argued that the Jewish community proved Franco’s point by doxxing him. Others have suggested that the whole situation could have been staged, as Franco is a Jewish last name, and that perhaps this incident was intended to garner sympathy. On the opposing side, some are stating that antisemitism has become “dangerously normalized” and should be “condemned without hesitation.” This whole situation has only gone to show how much of a divide there is on how certain people feel towards the Jewish community, and how many feel as though they can not trust or support them any longer.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Follow Us