Linked In added the Signal this week. It’s a new product that, “gives you a whole new way to consume information and news that’s most relevant to you as a professional.” Hmm…
The trouble is, I fervently disagree with those who hook up their Twitter feed to Linked In. It’s failing to understand that different media responds best to different inputs. Facebook expects some silly photos from Saturday night. Myspace expects music choices. Twitter expects inspiration, updates and whimsical thoughts. Linked In expects business. They can cross-pollinate one another, but they’re much better if treated as silos.
Sending one feed through all your social networks is like wearing the same clothes to a rugby match, to a dinner party, to a nightclub and to the office i.e. lacking in thought and effort.
That said, I completely understand that Linked In needs to evolve. Its recent IPO shows a clear hunger (or should that be need?) for growth. But is Signal pandering to the world’s over sharers, or an innovative addition to business networking. My fear is that I’m welcomed by dross like this when I log in:
I’m not sure repeating every BBC news article you’ve read is worthy of showing anyone in Twitter, let alone why on earth you’d bore your business connections with them. What possible added value can it create for either party?
The undeniable truth is The Web now has a pulse. We’ve got to hope that those with the stethoscopes ensure we skim the cream off the milk, not drown us with the Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga drivel that threatens us from all angles of our browsers.
If Linked In can be that authoritative filter, then I’m all ears. I guess that’s what digital arbitration looks like.
If an online company can act as a business lens to the Internet then who would you like it to be? Whose opinion and authority would you like to vet the world of the web?