The LinkedIn rant
3DP War Journal #76
Publishing valuable content on LinkedIn is becoming increasingly frustrating, because instead of focusing on creating and sharing knowledge, you have to try to guess how to satisfy the whims of the algorithm.
The end of the year is approaching, and with it the usual summaries. This time, however, instead of writing about the 3D printing industry, I decided to share a handful of reflections on the platform on which I have been publishing this series for the past year and a half - LinkedIn.
As some of you may have noticed, my activity on the platform has been steadily declining. It often comes down to liking posts and publishing this newsletter.
At the same time, just a few months ago, I was spending at least several hours a day here - publishing numerous articles and analyses, as well as engaging in discussions under other users’ posts.
But somewhere around the turn of the first and second quarter of the year, I began to notice significant disruptions to my work.
LinkedIn kept changing its algorithm, either ruthlessly cutting reach or, in a completely incomprehensible way, pumping up selected posts and turning them into virals.
In mid-April, I came across a report by a leading independent LinkedIn expert - Richard van der Blom - and based on his data, I wrote an article on the subject for The 3D Printing Journal:
In short, I showed that LinkedIn had significantly changed its algorithm. According to van der Blom, in the first quarter of 2025 reach dropped by more than -50% year over year, and follower growth slowed. The platform clearly began favoring short, condensed content, actively limiting the distribution of longer posts to users.
This meant that organic growth and engagement became harder to achieve, and content visibility depended more on the algorithm’s decisions than on users’ choices.
This was, in a way, the beginning of my gradual withdrawal from LinkedIn. First, I ended my daily cycle of historical articles:
Then I started working with Bambu Lab, which on the one hand limited my time resources, but on the other naturally forced a bit more restraint in commenting on the actions of competing companies (my opinions stopped being solely my own).
Nevertheless, from time to time the thought appears to return to what once was - to make peace with the algorithm and rebuild former reach.
Except that it makes absolutely no sense…
I continue to receive Richard van der Blom’s newsletter and read his analyses. And I come to the conclusion that the changes on LinkedIn are not so much moving in a good or bad direction, but are so unpredictable that adapting to them becomes a goal itself.
This is not a good place to publish valuable content. It is a place to follow rules.
Examples?
Van der Blom’s latest data shows that LinkedIn uses many “traps” - for example, the so-called 60-minute cliff, where a post gains a lot of interactions in the first hour and then suddenly stops being distributed.
The “Show more” shadowban - content critical of LinkedIn or socially controversial disappears after clicking, without any error or warning.
The algorithm has started to punish loyalty - repeated reactions from the same accounts lower a post’s reach (the algorithm treats this as artificial boosting).
Inactive followers (i.e., inactive for months) reduce the engagement percentage - 200 reactions out of 10,000 followers is only 2% and is treated as a weak result.
Even adding hashtags - once a way to improve visibility - now often lowers reach; as few as three tags can reduce reach by several percent, because the algorithm perceives this as spam.
Another LinkedIn expert, Chris Donnelly, stated that in Q3 2025 the average organic reach of a LinkedIn post dropped by -65% compared to earlier peaks. Without constant experimentation with formats, posting times, and unknown “quality rules,” even the best content can easily be buried by the algorithm.
A race against a mysterious system
From a creator’s perspective, sticking to algorithm guidelines resembles playing the lottery. As an author, I have zero influence over relationships with my audience - one algorithm change can wipe out years of work. How? Simply by stopping the display of my posts to you. And you won’t even notice.
Even when I publish valuable content, the outcome is limited by whether the algorithm decides to distribute the post more widely at that particular moment.
It’s like building real estate on “leased land.” Except that LinkedIn can demolish it in the next – unannounced - system update.
An alternative: the Substack newsletter
That’s why, for the past year, my activity has practically moved entirely to Substack and The 3D Printing Journal.
The number of subscribers continues to grow, and unlike LinkedIn, I have full control over reach. Email is not subject to the whims of an algorithm.
It is very simple game: if the content is good, readers share it with others, who voluntarily subscribe. If they find the content weak, useless, or irritating - they unsubscribe.
By contrast, it is mostly LinkedIn who decides whether to show you this article or not - regardless of whether you subscribed to it or not. Hopeless…
So that’s how it is. I continue to focus on developing The 3D Printing Journal newsletter, because it’s a more predictable channel that offers full control over reach.
Readers go there for the substantive value of the content, not because of algorithmic whims.
As for LinkedIn, nothing is likely to change in the coming months, and the platform is doing absolutely nothing to convince me to return and engage more. Certainly not to the extent I did one or two years ago.
Here and now, it simply makes no sense…
#7. Lugo Labs filed patent for low-waste multi-material 3D printing system
Lugo Labs has filed a patent for a hotend replacement system aimed at reducing waste in multi-material FFF 3D printing. Their modular approach, developed for the H1 printer, swaps only the print head, allowing the use of up to six materials with a single extruder motor. This contrasts with single-nozzle systems that produce purge waste. Similar concepts for tool-changing systems with dedicated hotends are being developed by Bondtech (INDX) and Bambu Lab (Vortex), but Lugo’s patent focuses on the mechanical connection mechanism.
READ MORE: www.3printr.com
#6. Apiar unveiled limited edition blockchain-inspired titanium watch
British watchmaker Apiar has released the Gen1.0 MR², a limited edition of 30 watches born from a social media mix-up involving two different men named Max Resnick. The timepiece combines generative design and 3D printing with cryptographic themes inspired by the Solana blockchain. Its grade-23 titanium case is produced via Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Unique features include a caseback engraved with a cryptographic signature using the SHA-256 algorithm and a dial patterned after the Solana logo. The watch is available for purchase using cryptocurrency (SOL or USDC), priced at £2,220.
READ MORE: www.voxelmatters.com
#5. BIQU unveiled wireless chamber control system
BIQU has announced the Panda Breath, a wireless accessory for desktop 3D printers that combines active chamber heating, air filtration, and filament drying. The device uses a 300-watt PTC heater to warm a closed build chamber, aiming to reduce warping and enable printing with advanced materials like PA, ABS, or ASA on printers lacking such controls. It features a replaceable air filter and works wirelessly via a companion app, activating automatically based on the print bed’s temperature. A drying mode allows the chamber to be used for storing and drying filament spools. The Panda Breath is expected to cost around €93, with availability details pending.
READ MORE: www.3printr.com
#4. CurifyLabs launched 3D printed pet medicines
Finnish company CurifyLabs has launched Curablend Vet, a new excipient system for 3D printing personalized veterinary medicines. The solution enables pharmacists to produce flavored, chewable gel tablets designed to be palatable for pets, addressing a key challenge in animal medication adherence.
READ MORE: www.tctmagazine.com
#3. Snapmaker secured Series B from chinese investors
Snapmaker has completed Series B funding round led by Chinese investors, including Hillhouse Ventures and Meituan. While the exact amount was undisclosed, the company stated it raised “tens of millions” in total. The capital will accelerate R&D in multi-color and high-speed printing, expand global talent acquisition, and build a comprehensive creator ecosystem.
READ MORE: www.3dprint.com
#2. Roboze and ASRY to open Bahrain’s first industrial AM facility
Italian Roboze and Arab Shipbuilding and Repair Yard (ASRY) have partnered to establish Bahrain’s first advanced additive manufacturing plant. Located within ASRY’s premises, the facility will support maritime, oil & gas, energy, aerospace, and defense sectors by producing high-performance, on-demand parts. The agreement was signed in the presence of Bahrain’s Crown Prince and Italy’s Prime Minister, highlighting its strategic importance for both nations’ industrial supply chains.
READ MORE: www.tctmagazine.com
#1. Jaylen Brown debuted 3D printed basketball shoe prototype
Boston Celtics NBA Finals MVP - Jaylen Brown, has unveiled a 3D printed performance sneaker prototype, signaling a potential shift in basketball footwear. The experimental shoe, dubbed the “741 V1,” was developed by Brown’s independent brand, 741 Performance, in collaboration with German 3D printing firm Zellerfeld. This move challenges traditional endorsement models and aims to push the boundaries of athletic gear through rapid iteration and advanced manufacturing.
READ MORE: www.3dprint.com