Agreed.  Facebook&#x27;s entire monetization strategy seems to be just showing ads to people who waste their time there looking at stupid videos and posting stupid comments to them.  That&#x27;s pretty easily defeated with an ad-blocker.<p>LinkedIn&#x27;s strategy is, as you said, a socially-connected CV platform so that recruiters can find people and hook them up with jobs, and make a big commission in the process, so LinkedIn charges recruiters a hefty fee for access to people.  Ad-blockers aren&#x27;t going to have any effect here: the recruiters still have to pay to send messages to people.  It seems like a much more sound business strategy, as long as professionals still need jobs and there&#x27;s recruiters looking to place them in jobs.  It might not have the mass appeal of the inanity of Facebook or Twitter (since only a fraction of the population is of the demographic that would find it worthwhile to use LinkedIn; someone working as a barista or a Walmart cashier would not), but it certainly isn&#x27;t subject to the same fickleness that those two are.  All it&#x27;ll take is some other inane social media platform to rise up for people to share dumb videos on and for FB&#x2F;Twitter to do something dumb to piss off people, and suddenly they could become the next MySpace.  LinkedIn&#x27;s position is much stronger, as long as they don&#x27;t screw it up trying to achieve the popularity of those other two.