Following is an article from my latest newsletter, “The Scrum Caretaker Courier 13“. Subscribe here if you prefer receiving my news and updates directly.

Over the years I have often observed with amazement what happens on so-called ‘Social Media’: what is being shared by whom (for what reason) and how others respond to what is being shared by whom (for what reason), whether it concerns a statement, a picture, a snippet, an event or an occurrence within the closed so-called Social Media environment or in what is usually called society or the (outside) world. Yet, for about 15 years it never stopped me from spending quite some time on those so-called Social Media platforms—checking out what was happening and occasionally attempting to contribute. It did take a long time but finally I seem to have realized that it was probably more like a habit rather than being a valuable activity. Realizing that I wasn’t getting a lot of personal benefits or insights from the time spent on these so-called Social Media, at first (a few years ago) I started limiting my presence on these platforms to professional topics only.

But even that didn’t work out in the long run.

And thus, toward the end of 2023, I stopped actively using Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X—instantly. I strongly felt that these platforms had become and would remain mostly non-collaborative, non-informative and even plainly toxic environments. Those platforms have too many inhabitants (depending upon their daily mood swing) neurotically complaining about, moaning over, bashing or belittling other inhabitants and events whether within or outside of that closed virtual world. I don’t exclude this perception to be influenced by my introvert nature.

Long before actually stopping to actively use them I had already started calling them ‘Vanity Media’ rather than ‘Social Media’. But, actually, we should take it a step further and stop calling them ‘media’ anyhow. Because there are not. They are not news or media channels. The ‘news’ shared through these ‘media’ is unmanaged, unmoderated, uncoupled, unredacted, unfiltered, unchecked, if not unhinged with the algorithmically enforced oscillation easily leading to undamped, untampered amplification causing downward spirals of negativity, bashing and fighting. There is no way to separate the signal from the noise, news from fake news, reality and facts from fantasy and lies (notice that the use of the term ‘alternative facts’ does mean admitting that is not a fact actually) in the absence of second checks, balance checks, verification, gatekeeping.

More than not, so-called ‘Social Media’ are commercial machines that incessantly feed on negativity to produce more…negativity. At best they are machines of emptiness. At worst they are the only source of information for many in the public space and are therefore an important player in the public-political sphere. While disruption and innovation are to be encouraged, this mass media function of these so-called Social Media does require forms of deontology, ground rules and accountability (for the information they spread and help spreading) in the same way it applies to traditional broadcasting or publishing companies for instance. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening, traditional media (newspapers, agencies, broadcasting companies) are lowering their quality and other standards to that of so-called Social Media.

And while the tools and technology exist (think: AI and language machines) to stop bashing, hate speech, polarisation and fake news on these so-called Social Media, self-regulation will not happen. Because the purpose of the holdings and owners of these platforms is not to feed people with correct and truthful information. Their purpose is making money, whatever it takes.

Not having actively used them since the end of 2023, by the beginning of 2025 I decided to completely remove my accounts. Guess what? I haven’t missed them. At all. Not a nano second.

Today I am only present on LinkedIn, for professional reasons although I do sometimes love to share some personal stories too. I do wonder however about the overall evolution of the platform and the direction it is taking—expressed through and driven by its algorithms.

The LinkedIn algorithms clearly don’t favor posts with references to sources outside of LinkedIn, like blog notes, articles, papers, newsletters published elsewhere, regardless of their value or the information they contain. LinkedIn stopped being a gateway for interesting professional information, stopped being a source of potentially useful information for me. LinkedIn only links to information available in its own closed system, thereby forcing its members to publish newsletters via LinkedIn, publish articles on LinkedIn, refer to other members’ LinkedIn accounts, etc. if they want their topics and messages to be distributed and shared.

In the end, I will not limit myself to LinkedIn for any of my publications or stories, but I am willing to share my stuff on LinkedIn also. But, as an author and frequent blogger, I am surprised that LinkedIn doesn’t even offer an easy way (like Medium does) to re-publish existing articles and blog notes. No, LinkedIn makes me re-enter my words almost manually. LinkedIn, in short, rather than making me feel linked to the world, other people and useful information, today makes me feels more like “LockedIn”. This feeling is re-enforced by the removal of features and capabilities when visiting LinkedIn in a web browser and even more in a mobile web browser. The messages and even mails saying that ‘the experience is better in the app’ makes clear what LinkedIn wants me to do.

Besides wanting to lock people in—and likely connected to that ambition—LinkedIn keeps degrading more and more towards a pseudo-professional version of Facebook, where clickbait, silly provocations and the hunt for likes prevail over content and collaboration. That degradation dawns on me more strongly seeing all these messages containing lists of different sorts of volumeachievements with people ultimately patting themselves on the back in invitations to receive such patting of their network too (think numbers of classes given or attended, students taught, connections, followers, likes, books written, books read, presentations given, characters typed in 60 seconds time, job positions, certifications, and alike world or personal records). I also consider how they are mostly ‘volume’ oriented parameters, saying nothing about value or impact, saying nothing about how the self-acclaimed record holder has tried to contribute to a better world, has tried to advance society, or to improve life on the workfloor.

In doing so, it seems we also like to make it look like we have no flaws or shortcomings. As with so many stories on other so-called Social Media I wonder whether they are not projections of a fictitious life, the imagined life that the authors hope that reader-spectators truly believe they live although ultimately it is a vanity show and charade. It raises the question whether so-called Social Media are also not a mirror of a society that is increasingly turning into a competitive arena for self-fulfilment at the cost of solidarity, citizenship and mutual growth? A society built on the false, neo-Darwinistic belief that life is a zero-sum power game.

Instead of aligning and harmonizing our ‘self’ with our environment, community, organization, team, we prefer narcissism disguised as self-care. Are we not just pretending and acting for an imagined audience? Pretending that life is not this continuous or regular battle that makes us bounce up and down between greatness and misery, but that we are always fantastic and unbelievable? How many are not just subjecting themselves to the tyranny of their public image, thereby undermining the true human freedom of deciding not to ‘perform’ on the economic battlefield? Where is the point of no return from where this derails into the narcissistic love for some imaginary self-created self, an exercise of false self-care to try to become an idol and be ‘recognized’? Today, LinkedIn is certainly as virtual a world as other so-called Social Media are and not representative for the many professionals I meet on the work floor, at events and in my classes and workshops.

I wonder what it means if a person has little, but very active and positively engaged followers? Would the LinkedIn algorithms favor them or all those attention seekers launching dead-end silly statements that deliver many clicks? You know the answer to that question, right?

My saddening overall observation is that negativity sells, although I strongly believe that it is positivity that lasts. Hating is easy, while contributing is challenging, but again…lasting.

If you’re into numbers, I have currently 17307 followers on LinkedIn, of which 9366 are connections. What counts more is that I feel having active followers (although that seems to invite people to include or tag me for no other reason than…volume).

Warm regards
Gunther
independent Scrum Caretaker