For 5 years, between 2015 and 2019, more than 20 million users of LinkedIn they were subjected to an experiment without their consent. The employment contacts platform conducted the study in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)the Stanford University and the College of Business Harvard University.
The work focused on testing a social science theory called ‘The paradox of weak ties’. This theory explains that there ‘strong ties’ (close friends and colleagues), and ‘weak ties’ (acquaintances or not so close contacts). Based on this, the researchers analyzed “the influence of weak associations” in the transmission of information to find job opportunities in social networks.
According to the study, published in the journal Science, LinkedIn conducted “multiple large-scale randomized experiments” on users around the world. The practice, known as A/B testing, consisted of presenting chosen subjects with different recommendations based on the algorithm ‘People You May Know’.
Suggestions for contacts included close and not-so-close people, such as friends of friends or professionals in the same field, but complete strangers. Next, they analyzed the 2 billion new connections, as well as the jobs that came from them, and the results are very revealing.
The findings show that ‘weak ties’ had more impact on labor mobility than ‘strong ties’. In other words, there are more possibilities of getting a new job through an acquaintance or distant contact, than through close people.
“Acquaintances are more valuable sources of job opportunities,” he said. Sinan Arallead author of the study and a professor at MIT.
They question the use of data in the LinkedIn experiment
Both the researchers and the platform maintain that the study will help improve the labor mobility of users. Aral argued that LinkedIn is just trying to find a more effective algorithm for its users.
“The findings help us understand how the platform’s algorithms affect employment opportunities and outcomes, and help LinkedIn design its platform to more effectively help its members find jobs and achieve social and economic mobility.” said the researcher.
However, users have been concerned that they were not informed of the experiment and by the company’s lack of transparency, since your data was used without your consentreports the media New York Times. Another complaint is that perhaps some people missed opportunities because the test only benefited some.
Aral also told USAToday that the researchers “received no private or personally identifiable data during the study”. Instead, the platform “only made available aggregated data for replication purposes” to have “greater privacy guarantees.”
In a statement, Linkedin said that during the study it had “acted consistently with the company’s user agreement, privacy policy and member settings.” They underline that its terms specify that the company reserves the right to use the personal data of its users for research purposes.
Editorial Team The editorial team of EMPRENDEDOR.com, which for more than 27 years has worked to promote entrepreneurship.