Bro boost: women say their LinkedIn traffic increases if they pretend to be men

A picture


Do your LinkedIn followers consider you a “thought leader”? Do hordes of commenters applaud your tips on how to “scale” your startup? Do recruiters slide into your DMs to “explore potential synergies”?If not, it could be because you’re not a man,Dozens of women joined a collective LinkedIn experiment this week after a series of viral posts suggested that, for some, changing their gender to “male” boosted their visibility on the network,Others rewrote their profiles to be, as they put it, “bro-coded” – inserting action-oriented online business buzzwords such as “drive”, “transform” and “accelerate”,Anecdotally, their visibility also increased,The uptick in engagement has led some to speculate that an in-built sexism in LinkedIn’s algorithm means that men who speak in online business jargon are more visible on its platform.

Like most large social media platforms, LinkedIn uses an algorithm to determine which posts it shows to which users – boosting some, and downgrading others.In a blog post on Thursday, LinkedIn acknowledged the trend, but said it did not consider “demographic information” in deciding who gets attention.Instead, it said, “hundreds of signals” factor into how a given post performs.“Changing gender on your profile does not affect how your content appears in search or feed,” a spokesperson said.Be that as it may, the anecdotes are piling up.

“It has certainly been exciting,” said Simone Bonnett, an Oxford-based social media consultant who changed her pronouns to “he/him” and her name to “Simon E” on LinkedIn earlier this week.“The kind of stats that I’m seeing at the moment are a 1,600% increase in profile views, which is wild if you think about what social media views look like at the moment, and a 1,300% increase in impressions.Also wild reach stats.”Megan Cornish, a communications strategist for mental health tech companies, said she started experimenting with her LinkedIn settings after seeing her reach on the platform decline precipitously earlier this year.First she changed her gender to “male”.

Then she told ChatGPT to rewrite her profile in “male-coded” language, based on a LinkedIn post suggesting the platform favours “agentic” words such as “strategic” and “leader”.Finally, she asked ChatGPT to rewrite old, badly performing posts from several months ago in similarly “agentic” language, figuring that recycling old, reworked content would help her isolate what effect “bro-coding” was having on her reach.Things went great.Almost immediately, Cornish’s reach on LinkedIn spiked, increasing 415% in the week after she trialled the changes.She wrote a post about the experience, and it went viral, racking up nearly 5,000 reactions.

The problem was, she hated it.Before, her posts had been “soft”, she said.“Concise and clever, but also like warm and human.” Now, bro-Megan was assertive and self-assured – “like a white male swaggering around”.She gave up after a week.

“I was going to do it for a full month.But every day I did it, and things got better and better, I got madder and madder.”Not everyone had the same experience as Cornish and Bonnett.Cass Cooper, a writer on technology and social media algorithms, said she changed her gender to “male” – and then her race to “white” (Cooper is Black).The overall result, she said, was a decline in her profile’s reach and engagement – an experience other women of colour on the platform have also discussed.

“We know there’s algorithmic bias, but it’s really hard to know how it works in a particular case or why,” she said,While the LinkedIn experiments were “frustrating”, she said she believed they were a reflection of broader society-wide biases,“I’m not frustrated with the platform,I’m more frustrated with the lack of progress [in society],”Users have been rumbling about LinkedIn’s weird position as a quasi-business, quasi-social network for some time, ever since the pandemic blurred professional boundaries and injected more oversharing into work.

LinkedIn’s occasional tendency to elevate extreme “bro-coding” is best illustrated by social media accounts recording the excesses of the platform.These latest “bro-coding” experiments, however, have their origins in what Cornish, Bonnett and others describe as algorithm changes in recent months that have caused female creators in particular to have markedly less visibility.This led to a series of informal experiments earlier this year, in which women and men in parallel industries posted the same content – and the men got drastically more reach.LinkedIn uses an AI system to classify posts to its feed, it says, deciding how to disseminate them based on their content, as well as the poster’s professional identity and skills.It evaluates its algorithms regularly, it says, including “checks for gender-related disparities”.

A spokesperson for LinkedIn suggested that a recent decline in certain users’ reach came from a far higher volume of content on the network, adding that there had been a 24% increase in comments and a commensurate spike in video uploads in the past quarter.Bonnett said the “bro-coding,” in her experience, was on the rise.“You always think of LinkedIn as being more genteel, more businesslike.It’s not like that any more.It’s starting to become the wild west.

cultureSee all
A picture

After 10 years talking to knights, squires and wizards, I understand why ren fairs are booming

“I dunno what to tell ya, mate,” a young knight once told me through his helm’s lifted visor. “Gettin’ shield bashed just feels good.”For the knaves among thee, a “shield bash” is what it sounds like: to bash, or be bashed, with a shield. It’s simple and to the point, like a mace to the face or an arrow to the knee. Witnessing a shield bash, you understand the “haha yesss” that the basher must feel upon bashing, just as you empathetically presume a long “oh noooooo” on behalf of the bashee

A picture

Seth Meyers on Epstein files: ‘It’s obvious why Trump fought so hard to stop this bill from passing’

Late-night hosts reacted to the congressional vote sending the bill to release all files related to late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to the desk of his former friend Donald Trump.It was a tough Tuesday for Trump, who lost his months-long battle to stop the release of the Epstein files on Tuesday after Congress passed a bill forcing the justice department publish them. “So now Trump is doing a 180,” said Seth Meyers on Wednesday’s Late Night.“He says he’ll sign the bill that forces him to release the files he could’ve released on his own but wouldn’t, thus requiring a bill to force him to do the thing he didn’t want to do that he’ll now be forced to do because of the bill he was against that he will now sign.”“It’s obvious why Trump fought so hard to stop this bill from passing,” Meyers later added

A picture

My cultural awakening: I moved across the world after watching a Billy Connolly documentary

I was 23 and thought I had found my path in life. I’d always wanted to work with animals, and I had just landed a job as a vet nurse in Melbourne. I was still learning the ropes, but I imagined I would stay there for years, building a life around the work. Then, five months in, the vet called me into his office and told me it wasn’t working out. “It’s not you,” he said, “I just really hate training people

A picture

Jimmy Kimmel on Epstein files congressional vote: ‘Make no mistake – this isn’t over’

Late-night hosts celebrated the congressional votes to release the Epstein files and decried Donald Trump’s warm meeting with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.Tuesday was “a very big day” in Washington DC, said Jimmy Kimmel on Tuesday evening, as both the House and Senate voted near unanimously to authorize the justice department to release investigative files related to the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.“Ultimately even [speaker] Mike Johnson voted yes on releasing the files,” Kimmel noted, meaning that the bill now heads to the White House, where it will probably66 be signed by Trump.“The goal was to have the bill pass by such a large margin that Trump can’t put his little orange thumb on the scale and give it the old Cheeto veto,” he explained. “But make no mistake: this isn’t over

A picture

British Museum ends ‘deeply troubling’ sponsorship from Japanese tobacco firm

The British Museum has ended a controversial sponsorship deal with a Japanese tobacco firm after reports that the government had raised questions about the deal, which some critics said was “deeply troubling”.The Guardian understands that the museum’s board chose to not renew the 15-year partnership with Japan Tobacco International (JTI), which ended in September.The pressure group Culture Unstained submitted a freedom of information request earlier this year, which it says revealed correspondence sent in January in which the government raised questions about the details of the deal.The Times reports that the Department of Health and Social Care told the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the deal could be a breach of the World Health Organization’s framework convention on tobacco control (FCTC).The framework bars states from advertising and promoting smoking products

A picture

Why don’t Conservatives get credit for culture funding? | Letter

Helen Marriage, a hugely respected cultural leader, writes that “there is no political party that will commit to the kind of investment needed to keep a living art and culture ecology alive” (Durham’s Lumiere festival was a beacon of hope and togetherness – we cannot let the lights go out on the rest of the arts, 11 November). But she also places the responsibility on all of us. She wants the culture sector to make a better case. But can it?As commissioner for culture in the last government, I remain surprised that large funding decisions directed at culture have been forgotten, devalued and ignored, perhaps because the sources were then from a Conservative government.During Covid, culture was the only economic sector to receive its own rapid, specially designed, comprehensive rescue package