Authenticity in Digital Content

OPEN LETTER TO LINKEDIN The growing need for structure and attribution in the knowledge economy LinkedIn you are the world’s largest professional knowledge network. You've democratized access, but in doing so, have flattened content, blurred provenance, and eroded trust. Your algorithm appears optimized for engagement, which inadvertently subsidizes noise and punishes original content. You now operate a system that rewards what spreads rather than what stands up to scrutiny. Popularity passes for truth, and noise drowns out knowledge. The loudest ideas rise the fastest — even when they add the least. Today, a researcher’s 18-month field study sits beside a pundit’s morning take, a recycled quote, and a viral meme, all formatted the same and indistinguishable as users scroll through their feeds. It feels like click-harvesting, and runs counter to your mission to make professionals more productive and successful. Traditional media solved this long ago: + Harvard Business Review separates research from commentary. + The Economist distinguishes data from opinion. + Fast Company labels features and essays differently. They did this for one reason, to help readers understand: What am I consuming, and why should I trust it? On LinkedIn, there’s no way to tell who uncovered an idea, who interpreted it, or who simply repackaged it. Operating the world’s largest knowledge exchange without structure or attribution overlooks the responsibility that comes with shaping how the world learns and works. How LinkedIn Can Steward a Layered Knowledge Economy? 1. Structure:  Not all creators serve the same function. LinkedIn can establish a taxonomy that helps audiences distinguish between research, reaction, analysis, and amplification. This would restore hierarchy and context to the feed — making expertise visible. To illustrate what a structure could look like, I’ve drafted an outline of five functional archetypes of the Knowledge Economy— Originators, Pundits, Aggregators, Amplifiers, and Synthesizers — complete with examples from the SaaS and AI industry. 2. Attribution: Establish content-protection and attribution standards. LinkedIn can establish standards that ensure original insights, data, and frameworks are instantly recognized, cited, and credited — not quietly copied or recycled for click harvesting. In a knowledge economy, provenance is protection. YouTube was forced to do this by the music industry—introducing attribution systems that ultimately benefited podcasters and creators worldwide. LinkedIn now faces a similar crossroads. In a knowledge economy, provenance is protection. Today, AI is uniquely suited to solve both of these challenges at scale. IN CLOSING LinkedIn’s mission has always been to connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful. What began as a place to find a role in business has become the place to do business. That evolution carries a new responsibility: to steward knowledge.

It’s so hard to tell AI apart from reality anymore. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA), may have an answer. This collaborative effort, spearheaded by industry giants such as Adobe, Arm, Intel, Microsoft, and Truepic, aims to forge a digital environment where the origins of media content can be traced reliably, restoring a measure of trust to the online world. A notable implementation of the C2PA standard comes from OpenAI, which tweeted last week that it has integrated C2PA metadata into images generated with ChatGPT on the web and through its API serving the DALL-E3 model. Users can leverage platforms like Content Credentials Verify to ascertain if an image was generated by the underlying DALL-E3 model through OpenAI’s tools, unless the metadata has been removed. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that metadata like C2PA, while instrumental in establishing provenance, is not a panacea. The ease with which it can be accidentally or intentionally removed—by actions such as uploading to social media platforms or taking screenshots underscores the complexities of digital provenance. The cornerstone of C2PA's strategy is the development of open technical standards for certifying the source and history—or provenance—of different types of media. This initiative represents a unified effort, amalgamating the Adobe-led Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI) and Project Origin, driven by Microsoft and the BBC, into a singular force combatting disinformation online. Central to C2PA's efforts is the introduction of the CR mark, standing for "Content Credentials." This feature serves as a visual indicator of the provenance of digital media, enabling users to easily identify content that has been verified according to C2PA's technical standards. Content creators utilising tools that support these standards can embed cryptographically signed metadata into their media, encapsulated within the CR mark. As Adobe says, it works by scrolling over the CR icon to reveal a “digital nutrition label”. “This list of ingredients will show verified information as key context so people can be sure of what they’re looking at. This can include data about a piece of content, such as: the publisher or creator’s information, where and when it was created, what tools were used to make it, including whether or not generative AI was used, as well as any edits that were made along the way.” The ability to authenticate the provenance of content directly impacts copyright enforcement, licensing agreements, and the broader IP regulatory framework. The CR mark offers a robust tool for helping protect IP rights by embedding information on authorship and modifications directly within the content. It’s also potentially risky from an IP perspective if used with AI generated output. Currently in the USA, AI generated outputs are not protected by copyright. Advertising to the world at large that your works are effectively public domain is a risky IP strategy.

LinkedIn is losing its purpose. Every day, my feed looks less like a professional platform and more like a cheap drama series. • Fake HR stories: “I rejected a candidate but my kid told me to hire them.” • Fake screenshots: WhatsApp chats where CEOs get life lessons from interns. • Fake struggles: Someone claims they walked 20km barefoot just to give an interview and magically got the job. • Copy-paste wisdom: The same motivational quote recycled 50 times with a different selfie. None of this helps anyone. It’s not networking. It’s not knowledge sharing. It’s just engagement farming. Here’s the harsh truth: 📌 Likes and comments don’t build your career. 📌 Manufactured inspiration doesn’t make you a thought leader. 📌 Faking stories destroys credibility in the long run. Meanwhile, people who actually share real insights, actual career lessons, failures, and learnings struggle for reach because the algorithm is busy rewarding fake drama. LinkedIn doesn’t need more fairy tales. It needs people willing to share something real — even if it doesn’t go viral. Engagement fades. Trust stays. Stop faking it. Start being useful. #FakeScreenshots #Authenticity #ProfessionalGrowth #CareerGrowth #ContentThatMatters

Most creators don’t fail in the beginning. They fail after they’ve already “made it.” For 1–2 years, they’re everywhere, relevant, trending, celebrated. And then… they fade out. Here’s why 👇 1. Trust Crisis – They keep changing their stance. Audiences can’t tell what they truly stand for anymore. 2. Vanilla Content – They stop asking tough questions. Their posts feel more like PR than personality. 3. Trend Chasing – They copy viral formats instead of creating their own. The hype continues, but their identity disappears. 4. Forced Controversy – They push “cool” stunts to stay relevant, but it backfires. Authenticity gets questioned. The truth: Going viral is short-term. Staying relevant is long-term. Creators who last are the ones who build on trust, originality, and consistency, not just hype. #ContentStrategy #CreatorEconomy #PersonalBranding

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈’𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. Visibility is becoming easier to earn, and verified membership on professional networks is part of that shift, LinkedIn recently announced that over 100 million members have now added at least one verification, and verified profiles can stand out with 𝐮𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝟔𝟎% 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝟓𝟎% 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬, showing how trust signals affect both attention and interaction on the platform. Yet there’s a pattern emerging where creators gain audience faster than they build the deeper credibility that professional decision makers look for. A creator identity that outpaces your real-world professional substance brings a lot of attention but not always the meaningful opportunities that transform careers. People may like what you say, but recruiters, clients, and collaborators look first for evidence that you can apply that insight in real problems, consistently. When your online growth outstrips those signals of professional reliability, you risk becoming someone who is followed but not trusted with responsibility. I see this most often when content optimization overtakes context in someone’s publishing habits. Nuance starts to feel risky, depth gets sacrificed for reach, and professionalism becomes a performance rather than a positioning. Over time, this weakens the very authority creators are trying to build. The strongest creator-practitioners I observe treat content as a byproduct of the work they do, not a replacement for it. Their writing grows from decisions they’ve made, problems they’ve solved, and trade-offs they’re navigating. Growth may feel slower at times, but credibility compounds quietly and draws opportunities that actually stretch careers instead of just inflating profiles. My takeaway is simple. Creator identity should be rooted in professional substance. If your audience is growing, make sure your judgment, skills, and real-world contributions are growing even faster. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐮𝐧, 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦. 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭. Curious how others are thinking about this balance between visibility and professional depth in their own careers? Source: LinkedIn Official Announcement, Announcing 100M verified members: building trust on and beyond LinkedIn, December 2025. LinkedIn News India LinkedIn News #Leadership #PersonalBranding #FutureOfWork #CreateMomentum #LinkedInNewsIndia

Something surprising is happening with trust in U.S. health information. Americans still trust the scientists. They just don’t trust the government institutions or leaders many of them work for. A new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center found: • 67% trust career scientists at federal health agencies • Only 43% trust agency leadership • 86% trust their own doctor most for health information • Only 60% trust agencies like CDC, FDA, and NIH, a big drop from 75% in 2024 • Professional organizations like the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics now rank far higher than agencies Americans aren't rejecting science, but they’re re-sorting where trust lives. Last year, I wrote about the impending disruption of the health content ecosystem. https://lnkd.in/es7PC4Er This survey is another signal that it's real. For decades, the system looked like this: Government guidance → media coverage → clinician reinforcement. Today it looks more like this: Government agencies Professional societies Healthcare organizations Clinicians Independent scientists Creators / influencers News outlets AI chat bots All producing and distributing health information at the same time. In that environment, three things change: 🔀 Authority fragments Americans assemble their own network of trusted sources. 🏛️ Trust detaches from institutions Experts may remain credible even when organizations lose credibility. 📢 Distribution shapes credibility The content that gets seen, understood, and shared increasingly becomes the content that gets believed. Public health communication used to be about publishing guidance. Now it’s about operating in a disrupted content ecosystem. That raises an important question for health organizations: Are we designing content systems that can earn trust in this environment? Today, trust depends not only on what experts know but also on how effectively that knowledge becomes trusted content. More about the research here: https://lnkd.in/ezZnW5hy More about content systems here: https://lnkd.in/eZKz8bih #healthcontent #disruption #digitaltransformation #contentstrategy #contentsystems #ai #contentoperations #health #communication

Last week, six major creators left FaZe Clan on the same day, all posting the same message: “Left @FaZeClan.” For anyone unfamiliar, FaZe Clan was once the most influential creator and esports organization in the world. It helped turn unknown creators into global brands by providing distribution, credibility, and culture. Allegedly, many of their recent creator signings were structured without FaZe holding any ownership in the creators’ personal brands. That structure worked: 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵. Those creators became large enough that they no longer needed FaZe, while FaZe became increasingly dependent on them. According to creator Adin Ross, when FaZe’s ownership later attempted to introduce a 20% stake in creators’ personal brands, it wasn’t part of the original agreement. By then, the leverage had already flipped. The creators weren't interested. FaZe should have taken 20%. But they should've taken it early. They earned the right by helping build the talent. The mistake was not setting that expectation from the start. As someone running a talent management company that takes 20% from our talent, this is the lesson the industry needs to internalize: you don’t get a second chance to structure alignment. Once creators reach escape velocity, they will choose independence over retroactive economics every time. It's a common case in any entertainment related industry. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐟𝐞𝐰 𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬: 1️⃣ 𝐒𝐞𝐭 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞: If you help build talent, you earn economics — but only if they’re explicit at signing. No retroactive ownership. No late-stage renegotiation. 2️⃣ 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐬: Creators eventually outgrow platforms. The deal has to survive the moment leverage flips, or it won’t survive at all. 3️⃣ 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞: Even fair economics fail when introduced late. Once trust breaks, scale and legacy stop mattering. The takeaway isn’t that creators were wrong to leave. Nor that it was wrong for FaZe to ask for 20%. It’s that FaZe’s most costly decision was waiting too long to formalize alignment. ----- Read more from Cecilia D'Anastasio for Bloomberg: https://lnkd.in/gdS6PjU3

When this client - a gynaecologist - first came to us, she had 300 followers on LinkedIn. Not because she wasn’t knowledgeable. Not because she wasn’t doing meaningful work. But because she didn’t know how to translate her voice into visibility. Like most doctors, she was busy doing the real work -  consulting, researching, helping patients — while the world of branding, content, and social presence felt like “something other people do.” But she had one very real desire: “I want more people to hear the truth about women’s health the way I want to talk about it - not the way society expects me to.” And that’s where the story began. In just 3 months: ✨ She grew from 300 → 5,000+ followers ✨ Crossed 200,000+ organic impressions ✨ Built a community of women who trust her voice ✨ Started meaningful conversations around women’s health ✨ Became a recognizable medical voice without losing her authenticity ✨She also started getting online consultation queries and podcasts invites. And here’s how it actually happened 👇 1. We adapted to her voice, not the other way around. Doctors often sound too formal online. But true impact happens when you sound human, not academic. We spent days understanding: how she speaks to patients how she explains sensitive topics what she believes in her boundaries the myths she wants to break the tone she never wants to lose Every post needed to sound exactly like her, not a content writer. 2. We spoke about taboo topics, gently and responsibly. Women’s health is full of misinformation. And most doctors avoid talking about real issues publicly. But she was willing. Day-to-day challenges women silently carry, the myths and superstitions passed down for generations, relationship issues no one wants to admit, men’s fertility and health (because yes, it matters too), and all the uncomfortable truths most people avoid. We didn’t sugarcoat. We just told the truth simply, calmly, responsibly. That honesty is what people connected with. 3. We designed a content system that built trust, not noise. No forced hooks. No “shock value” headlines. Just: • clear explanations people could finally understand • gentle storytelling that made medical topics feel human • simple visuals that didn’t overwhelm • real patient-like scenarios anyone could relate to • calm, credible language that felt reassuring, not intimidating Because in healthcare, clarity is the strongest form of marketing. The outcome? She didn’t just grow numbers. She grew trust. And trust is the real currency for any doctor online. So, if you’re a doctor reading this… Your voice can reach more people than your clinic ever will. Your expertise deserves visibility. Your patients need clarity, not silence. And if you want help building a medical personal brand that’s ethical, calm, and deeply trusted — DM me “DOCTOR.” I’ll show you how we help healthcare professionals grow without losing their voice.

Engagement pods grow followers, but with a catch. Yesterday, a connection reached out, suggesting we form a pod to “catch up”. I think they meant well, seeing it as a way to grow visibility. But it got me thinking about why shortcuts like these aren’t worth it. During his recent Mortgage Cohort, LinkedIn Top Gun, Darren McKee shared 3 reasons not to pod (or buy engagement): Misleading Metrics: Engagement pods can inflate your numbers, but they don't reflect genuine interest. It’s a bit like buying a fake audience—you get numbers, but no real value. Inflated engagement actually harms your personal brand. Violation of Terms: Many don’t realize this, but engagement pods go against LinkedIn’s terms of service (see below for details). Getting caught could mean account restrictions or bans, which would be catastrophic to many of us. Lack of Authenticity: Fake engagement can damage your credibility. Your real network will notice if comments feel forced or if likes spike without substance. A friend and I dug into a mutual connection's engagement. Comments immediately stood out as odd. They had an 'AI generated' feel. Many were made by 2nd or 3rd connections w/ a high % of profiles outside of US. Don't fall for LinkedIn Guru Juice. Resist the 'need for speed'. Growing on LinkedIn is a long game. Here’s what's worked for me: Engage Authentically: Comment on posts you genuinely find interesting. Engage in real conversations. Consistent Content: Post consistently on topics you care about. Share insights, stories, and ask questions that spark discussion. Build Real Relationships: Connect with people in your industry, attend LinkedIn events, and take the time to build meaningful connections. I've been on this platform since 2008, and will never risk losing the nearly 33,000 followers I've earned. P.S. That's not really Tom Cruise If you've made it this far, thank you. Here's that reference to LinkedIn's TOS: LinkedIn's official stance against engagement pods and similar tactics falls under its general prohibition against "artificial or fake activity." The platform’s User Agreement specifically outlines that users should not engage in "manipulating identifiers to disguise the origin of any message or post" and prohibits using services that artificially inflate engagement (such as likes, comments, or followers) through automated means. This includes participating in engagement pods, which are seen as a violation because they create non-genuine interactions and potentially mislead other users. LinkedIn’s algorithms are designed to detect patterns indicative of engagement manipulation, like receiving a high number of interactions from users outside one's immediate network or from suspiciously coordinated groups. If LinkedIn identifies these behaviors, it may result in shadowbanning (reducing post visibility) or even account suspension.

𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐚 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 — 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐈𝐟 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐕𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭? In the race to grow their personal brand, I’ve seen people: ✔ Post what they think will go viral ✔ Copy formats, tones, even personal stories ✔ Speak like a brand, not a human And while it may get likes, it often loses the one thing that truly builds trust — 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲. When I started building my personal brand, I promised myself: I’d rather grow slowly as myself than fast as someone else. Here’s what helped me stay grounded while showing up online: 📍𝗪𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 Your posts shouldn’t sound like a brochure. If you’d never say it out loud in real life, don’t type it. Tone = trust. And trust builds connection. 📍𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 “𝗶𝗻-𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀” 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 Everyone loves a success story. But people connect with the messy middle. Not every post needs a perfect outcome. Sharing the journey builds more credibility than polished perfection. 📍𝗧𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 Not what’s trending. Not what’s getting others likes. But what reflects your experience, your lens, your thoughts. The more real you are, the more people remember you — not just your content. People trust individuals more than brands. That trust only comes from being you, not a curated version of what you think people want. Your personal brand shouldn’t feel like a performance. It should feel like an amplified version of your real self. How do you make sure your content stays true to you? Drop your take👇 #PersonalBranding #AuthenticityOnline #LinkedInCreator #TrustMatters #ShowUpReal