6 ms·

Let's put this into context. It looks like LinkedIn is trying to detect specific plugins which affect the page/UX. The plugins the author links to are for scrap

Let's put this into context. It looks like LinkedIn is trying to detect specific plugins which affect the page/UX. The plugins the author links to are for scraping personal emails for email marketing "leads." This is totally common, so I'm not making any kind of judgement here, but I think LinkedIn has a right to protect its service and users. I can imagine the support requests that happen where the LinkedIn the person is seeing isn't the same as LinkedIn would be pretty confusing. Not all people are smart enough to know what all their extensions do, especially if they use them for their job and were told to install and use them. With all that said, I also think people have a right to use the extensions they want to scrape or block content on sites they visit, so catch 22 I guess. It's worth thinking of this from both angles before getting angry at LinkedIn, or the author of this post :)

luckylion 7y ago
That's easy: LinkedIn should simply ask for permission. "Hey, you're about to submit a support request. Can we quickly check your browser for a few plugins that are known to cause trouble?" "Is that plugin installed" is also a terrible "protection" against scraping.
- codezero 7y ago
  Yeah, that's reasonable, I think it's much more likely to be an arms race w/ contact scraping extensions than a support issue.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Probably, but tbh, it sounds like a bad way to combat scraping, much like blocking curl user agent strings. Looking for access patterns that are typical for automated usage are a much better answer - and not publicly showing email addresses to everyone, of course.
tw04 7y ago
>I also think people have a right to use the extensions they want to scrape or block content on sites they visit Do you also think people have a right to record movies they watch in the theater? I think people are free to run whatever extensions they want in their browser. I think companies are also free to tell people they aren't welcome if they're going to use that extension. Why should a company like linkedin be FORCED to serve anyone? It's not a public service, they aren't a government entity, you have no right to their service.
- evanlivingston 7y ago
  Do you think people have a right to photocopy an entire book from the library? What about part of a book? What if I copy a paragraph by hand into my notebook. Where is the line? Also, companies are forced to serve people all the time. That was a large part of the fight for civil rights. At some level we do have a right to the service of a private company.
  - mdpopescu 7y ago
    Yes. Yes. Yes. Nowhere. Sure, but that doesn't make it not wrong. Companies are made of people. Forcing people to do something against their will is aggression; if they haven't started it then it's morally wrong.
- codezero 7y ago
  I’m pretty much in agreement with you I think.
- sb8244 7y ago
  Why should LI be able to sell you the data (Recruiter service) that they don't own? The difference in this analogy is that films are fully the IP of the production company but LI sells data that they don't explicitly own.
  - tw04 7y ago
    > LI sells data that they don't explicitly own. What are you talking about? Anything you post on LinkedIn is their property. You can't legally access anything on their site without agreeing to their policy. Did you not read the agreement when you signed up for the site? https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement
eridius 7y ago
I think detecting extensions would be reasonable if they're doing this in order to figure out what features their users want that LinkedIn isn't providing, so they can start offering those features as first-party features instead. But I doubt that's why they're doing this.
- codezero 7y ago
  That's actually a pretty darn good idea, the invasiveness aside, in fact, if they were doing this for that reason, it may be easy enough to let folks know that's why so it doesn't feel so invasive.
buttsu_ 7y ago
This is worth getting angry at Linked in, sorry

luckylion 7y ago

That's easy: LinkedIn should simply ask for permission. "Hey, you're about to submit a support request. Can we quickly check your browser for a few plugins that are known to cause trouble?" "Is that plugin installed" is also a terrible "protection" against scraping.

codezero 7y ago
Yeah, that's reasonable, I think it's much more likely to be an arms race w/ contact scraping extensions than a support issue.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Probably, but tbh, it sounds like a bad way to combat scraping, much like blocking curl user agent strings. Looking for access patterns that are typical for automated usage are a much better answer - and not publicly showing email addresses to everyone, of course.

tw04 7y ago

>I also think people have a right to use the extensions they want to scrape or block content on sites they visit Do you also think people have a right to record movies they watch in the theater? I think people are free to run whatever extensions they want in their browser. I think companies are also free to tell people they aren't welcome if they're going to use that extension. Why should a company like linkedin be FORCED to serve anyone? It's not a public service, they aren't a government entity, you have no right to their service.

evanlivingston 7y ago
Do you think people have a right to photocopy an entire book from the library? What about part of a book? What if I copy a paragraph by hand into my notebook. Where is the line? Also, companies are forced to serve people all the time. That was a large part of the fight for civil rights. At some level we do have a right to the service of a private company.
- mdpopescu 7y ago
  Yes. Yes. Yes. Nowhere. Sure, but that doesn't make it not wrong. Companies are made of people. Forcing people to do something against their will is aggression; if they haven't started it then it's morally wrong.
codezero 7y ago
I’m pretty much in agreement with you I think.
sb8244 7y ago
Why should LI be able to sell you the data (Recruiter service) that they don't own? The difference in this analogy is that films are fully the IP of the production company but LI sells data that they don't explicitly own.
- tw04 7y ago
  > LI sells data that they don't explicitly own. What are you talking about? Anything you post on LinkedIn is their property. You can't legally access anything on their site without agreeing to their policy. Did you not read the agreement when you signed up for the site? https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement

eridius 7y ago

I think detecting extensions would be reasonable if they're doing this in order to figure out what features their users want that LinkedIn isn't providing, so they can start offering those features as first-party features instead. But I doubt that's why they're doing this.

codezero 7y ago
That's actually a pretty darn good idea, the invasiveness aside, in fact, if they were doing this for that reason, it may be easy enough to let folks know that's why so it doesn't feel so invasive.

buttsu_ 7y ago

This is worth getting angry at Linked in, sorry