3 min read
LinkedIn is pushing back hard against allegations that its ranking algorithm favors male users, after a new study suggested women receive significantly less visibility for identical content. The research, released November 27 by marketing analytics firm Graphically (which has since been removed), analyzed 10,000 posts from 500 users and found that posts authored by men generated, on average, 25 to 30 percent more impressions than women’s posts, even when controlling for industry, posting time, and content type.
Graphically titled its report “The Visibility Gap,” arguing that the platform’s engagement-focused ranking system unintentionally reinforces longstanding professional imbalances. The firm claims LinkedIn’s feed tends to amplify posts that already perform well within historically male-dominated networks, especially in sectors like technology and finance.
This wasn’t a solitary event, as many other LinkedIn users posted their take on the supposed gender disparity. One user took to LinkedIn to post the following:
I told LinkedIn I was a man and my impressions doubled. This can’t be a coincidence.
Maybe it’s just the algo serving me the posts I like but my feed is full of posts from women who’ve changed their gender on here to male and seen an uptick in their engagements.
It reminded me that I did this 3 months ago and forgot all about it.
Which actually makes this a valid test because I changed literally nothing else.
LinkedIn moved quickly to reject the findings. As explained by LinkedIn’s Sakshi Jain, who leads AI Safety, Privacy and Governance:
“Our algorithm and AI systems do not use demographic information (such as age, race, or gender) as a signal to determine the visibility of content, profile, or posts in the Feed. Our product and engineering teams have tested a number of these posts and comparisons, and while different posts did get different levels of engagement, we found that their distribution was not influenced by gender, pronouns, or any other demographic information.”
“A side-by-side snapshot of your own feed updates that are not perfectly representative, or equal in reach, doesn’t automatically imply unfair treatment or bias. In addition, we are seeing the volume of content created daily on LinkedIn has grown rapidly over the past year, which means more competition for attention but also more opportunities for creators and viewers alike.”
The debate reflects a broader conversation happening across social media, where algorithmic transparency has become a major point of contention. A 2023 MIT study previously flagged LinkedIn for disproportionately amplifying male voices in STEM fields, suggesting that “gender-neutral” systems can still produce biased outcomes if they learn from skewed historical data.
LinkedIn countered by highlighting recent product updates intended to elevate underrepresented voices, including changes rolled out in November 2025 for professional groups and new reporting tools for bias concerns.
For the platform’s one billion members, the controversy underscores LinkedIn’s growing influence as a career gateway. Women, who represent 42 percent of users but only 27 percent of executive roles, rely heavily on the network for visibility and opportunity. Graphically’s report recommends posting strategically during peak female-engagement windows and using collaborative tags to widen reach.
As LinkedIn prepares its 2026 algorithm refresh, the company has pledged more transparency through quarterly reports. Whether that reassures critics remains uncertain, but the platform maintains its stance: the feed is merit-driven, not gendered. Which sounds hefty, but has not yet convinced thousands of people who are participating in the #wearthepants hashtag on the platform to show how to become a man on LinkedIn for posts to be widely circulated.
