Author here. You seem to be intentionally conflating the ability to post a link with my critique of how LinkedIn affects its reach through the algorithm. To be

Author here. You seem to be intentionally conflating the ability to post a link with my critique of how LinkedIn affects its reach through the algorithm. To be clear: Your links will physically “work,” as in you can post them. But they lose much of their organic reach, in part because LinkedIn treats links as second-class citizens. It wants you to stay engaged on the platform. (The guy I quoted in the piece says he figured this out through research.) The result is that, if you’re trying to build an audience on that network, you have to spend inordinate amounts of time building lengthy content that is built for the network itself, which is why every LinkedIn post seems huge. It’s the difference between a handful of likes and comments and hundreds, possibly thousands. Think of it this way: You are driving a car that cannot switch gears, and using that to dispute the claims of a post that is critiquing the inability to switch gears. To be clear, you may be OK with that, but the problem is, it intentionally does not play fairly with the open internet, and it means that people have to do a lot of additional busywork to use this service that they prefer to spend on something else. There’s a difference between being able to do something, which is what you’re describing, and it actually functioning to the best of its capabilities. Sure, you can run with a sprained ankle, but you’re going to go a lot slower and feel a lot more pain than someone who doesn’t have that impediment. LinkedIn is artificially adding impediments to linked posts, just like every other platform. But they appear to be doing so in ways more dramatic and extreme than some of their competitors.