LinkedIn, like Twitter, is limiting API usage to specific use cases that dovetail with LinkedIn's own apps, instead of competing with them. The restrictions were imposed yesterday. The authors of this manifesto think that's a bad thing, but they don't give me, the reader, any more information.
Why is it a bad thing?
What cool stuff am I missing by using LinkedIn and its restrictive API?
Making potentially baseless claims and not explaining their impact beyond "they're bad!" is the kind of rhetoric a middle schooler uses before he or she learns to write proper persuasive prose.
While I agree that data should be as freely available as possible--so long as the person to whom the data belongs approves--I really can't get on board with this histrionic garbage.
Make an assertion. Back it up with evidence. Explain the consequences.
What did you tweak? I'm not a technical person so don't understand why those specific use-cases are bad. If you want the majority of Linkedin users to care about the cause, you ought to put it in language that the vast, non-technical majority will understand.
ResearchGate as a replacement for LinkedIn, on account of LinkedIn's spammy tactics? I can only hope this was meant in jest; if so: well-played, friend, well-played indeed. ResearchGate has taken dark marketing into the realm of high art.
I actually couldn't tell if it was intended to be a joke, a trolling, or perhaps the rantings of a lunatic. Putting in stuff like "federated bodies of the internet" and the "empire of LinkedIn" makes it seem like it's supposed to be a gag.
If this site is supposed to be serious, they should perhaps remove the superfluous text and add some actual information about what LinkedIn is doing (aside from just linking to the image of the terms of service notification).
--EDIT-- I see that this is a re-wording of FDR's infamy speech which explains the text. I still can't tell if it's a joke or not though.
I've dealt with vendors in other situations who felt they had a right to free and open access to the Mother Ship, even when they were competing with it. You can't get around that mindset. The only reason to be angry is when the Mothership makes explicit promises that it backs away from. And given how many platforms bring things in to control the user experience (even AirBnB is taking more ownership of the total experience) this shouldn't come as a surprise to the small players.
I wonder if it has to do with the MASSIVE amount of head hunter spam that we may get from LinkedIn. Maybe they actually restrict its access for the Greater Good?
That spam IS the LinkedIn business model and it's not coming from 3rd party apps that have access to the API - it's coming from LinkedIn's main site and the (premium) features they offer.
I think the other question is: Will all of the alternatives presented guarantee they won't pull the same stunt? Is there legalese to this affect? Or are the suggestions basically "use these guys and hope they don't do the same thing" in which case, you are in the same boat as before.
Why is it a bad thing?
What cool stuff am I missing by using LinkedIn and its restrictive API?
Why should I put effort into an alternative?