I recently got a notification from LinkedIn inviting me to wish a long ago client a happy birthday. What a nice idea! The only problem is that that client died 12 years ago.
This is a problem for all social media sites, but especially so for ones oriented around connection (LinkedIn, Facebook) rather than following (Twitter, Bluesky).
When the dead outnumber the living
It’s not the first time I’ve witnessed this, and it reminded me of a 2019 prediction that deceased Facebook users will outnumber the living within 50 years. This assumes that the then-current growth rates will continue, of course but, specifics aside, there’s no question that all the major platforms will need to reckon with the reality that an increasing share of their accounts will belong to people who are no longer alive.
Current policies
The notification prompted me to look into LinkedIn’s policies concerning the accounts of deceased users. Their help page invites anyone connected with the user to contact them to request that the account be closed.
To do this, not only would you need a lot of specific information about the user, but you’d also need to provide a death certificate along with documentation proving that you’re authorised to act on behalf of the user.
It’s reasonable for LinkedIn to be cautious in this regard. Imagine the harm and distress if someone, either through error or malice, caused a living user’s account to be removed or memorialised, with an “in remembrance” flag.
Regarding this particular client, I didn’t know them well but I knew they were married and had two college-age daughters. My best guess is that their immediate family was either not aware of their LinkedIn account, was unable to produce the necessary documentation to deactivate the account, or maybe just found it too painful to deal with. Whatever the case, all of this person’s 500+ LinkedIn connections get a “wish X a happy birthday!” notification every February.
I believe LinkedIn could and should do better than this.
Better remedies
Social media sites should accept the reality of attrition in all forms, and develop appropriately tiered policies to manage it.
Assuming LinkedIn will be here for the long haul, every single LinkedIn user will die, unless they deactivate their account first.
As with Facebook, dead LinkedIn users will make up an ever-growing percentage of the account base, and may eventually outnumber the living. Are we willing to accept a situation where high hurdles are put in place to keep all those accounts active?
A tiered approach
At a minimum, LinkedIn should develop policies for accounts that become inactive for any reason.
Let’s say that a user hasn’t interacted with their account in any fashion for a year. LinkedIn might then send them a series of reminders – say, three emails over a period of a month. If they don't respond to any of them, then their account is suspended. The account is still there, but most or all of the interactive features get removed – no more “congratulate X for their Nth work anniversary!” or “wish X a happy birthday!” – and an “inactive” flag gets added, maybe with some helpful copy (“if you know this person, please encourage them to log in and reactivate their account”).
If the user doesn’t reactivate their account after a further interval – six months or a year – then the account is fully deactivated. The residue of the user's activity – likes, comments, and so on – could remain, discreetly flagged or grayed out, and any links to the profile might point to a generic “this account is no longer active” page.
Objections
This problem seems obvious, and I don't believe that the major social media sites are unaware of it. The solution doesn't seem difficult. Why don't they address it better?
I believe it's because all of any user's activity – their posts, comments, likes, media, and other interactions – are assets which can be monetised, even when the user is no longer active. It follows that the sites will be reluctant to discard or disable these assets without a compelling reason.
It’s self-evident that the account of a user who’s been inactive for several years should not be presented as if it’s equivalent to that of a currently active user. Doing so is misleading and, in the case of deceased users, unethical. In the long term, the user experience of the site becomes degraded, and the brand becomes tainted.
The focus on the numbers for their own sake is encapsulated by Goodhart's Law, which states that When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
LinkedIn should do better.
More information
- Are the dead taking over Facebook? (Öhman & Watson, 2019)
- Deceased LinkedIn member (LinkedIn help page)
- If you're not paying for the product, you are the product (Alan Berg podcast, 2021)
- Goodhart's Law (Wikipedia)