I think LinkedIn is a massively privacy violating service, and alternatives are a very good and important thing to see. I would add one comment though perhaps helpful in the future:
One reason people here take such a vigorous stance against startups doing these kinds of "dirty tricks" is because they want real alternatives that treat them as more than a number of a row in a database. The incumbents will use opt-out techniques and consent walls, and dark patterns to grow.
But at the end of the day, they're being valued by the number of rows in their database. It seems there's a real potential to have lots of (but fewer) rows in your database, but for them to be actual valued users who get value from your service, and you make money from. Hyper growth scaling doesn't always have to be the only way. A curated network of a focused and high value verified demographic is likely worth orders of magnitude more than the incumbent, without any data selling or shenanigans.
Not sure if they're still doing it, but the way they were harvesting e-mails and then using them to spam the harvested contacts, they were no better than any other phishing site.
For people who use the same password on LinkedIn and their e-mail account, it was extremely easy to accidentally "consent" to this, and I've seen many an apology to the spam victims from someone who accidentally gave access. And they would spam everyone multiple times, with no way for the recipients to stop it. (They paid a $13M settlement for this; gladly, I assume).
It still boggles my mind that e-mail providers didn't both block LinkedIn's IPs from accessing contacts and spam-can everything from their mail servers.
Agreed - I think they stopped doing this, but I am still tempted to make a GDPR complaint on the basis I have never consented to receiving contact from them.
Looking back at my email archives, I was still getting "X's invite is awaiting your response" emails in October 2018, after GDPR began.
Perhaps I am taking an overly strict view here, but given my email address is my personal data, no amount of consent (or indeed waivers/warrants from users that they have my consent, which LinkedIn has no genuine reason to believe true) can grant them permission to store and process my personal data.
It seems nonetheless unavoidable for LinkedIn to have carried out the process of linking my email to the person that sent the (unsolicited) request. This kind of behaviour is really rather scummy. I hope that invite spam could be a separate case on the basis of a GDPR violation, rather than the "accidentally going into people's email and getting their contacts" (as incredulous as it is to even write this!)
I think LinkedIn is a massively privacy violating service, and alternatives are a very good and important thing to see. I would add one comment though perhaps helpful in the future:
One reason people here take such a vigorous stance against startups doing these kinds of "dirty tricks" is because they want real alternatives that treat them as more than a number of a row in a database. The incumbents will use opt-out techniques and consent walls, and dark patterns to grow.
But at the end of the day, they're being valued by the number of rows in their database. It seems there's a real potential to have lots of (but fewer) rows in your database, but for them to be actual valued users who get value from your service, and you make money from. Hyper growth scaling doesn't always have to be the only way. A curated network of a focused and high value verified demographic is likely worth orders of magnitude more than the incumbent, without any data selling or shenanigans.