This summer LinkedIn Learning (the company that owns Lynda.com and is, in turn, owned by Microsoft) announced that users of Lynda.com would be required to sign up to use their social media platform to access courses, track progress, and, in short, use the product. Ohio public libraries currently receive access to Lynda.com through OPLIN and the Ohio Web Library.
This announcement from LinkedIn Learning was met with consternation from public libraries across the nation. How do we protect our patrons’ data? What do we tell patrons who aren’t yet 16 and can’t create a LinkedIn account? Are we still good stewards of public tax dollars if we don’t use a resource for which we’ve already paid? What resources are out there that could replace Lynda if we deem this unacceptable?
In the days of post-Cambridge Analytica, post-Equifax America, concern about privacy isn’t limited to the conspiracy theorists and the hyper-vigilant. While the average citizen might be confused about how to keep their information secure, most have an awareness that information privacy is something about which to be concerned.
The ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom issued a letter to LinkedIn Learning urging LinkedIn Learning to reconsider its stance. Decision-makers at OPLIN and at libraries across the state wrestled with the choice of how to proceed. By the end of the summer, some libraries had opted to forego using Lynda.com, some libraries had chosen to inform patrons and leave the decision to them, and many others were still mulling over the best course of action.
Then, approximately one month before the new policy was to take place, LinkedIn Learning announced that the change scheduled for November 1st would be postponed.
In their statement about postponement, LinkedIn Learning says,
“[W]e recognize that there are ongoing concerns about some of the changes we are making. This pause will give us time to continue our discussions with the library community and understand if we can build an online learning solution that meets the needs of public libraries and library patrons. While we cannot commit to any changes in our approach at this time, this pause will give us time to have the right, thoughtful discussions.”
Public libraries should continue asking themselves the questions raised by the LinkedIn Learning debate. As of now, there is no timetable for when (or if) a change in policy will take place. Librarians have been given breathing room to try to influence LinkedIn Learning and to stress the importance of protecting patron privacy.
What are your thoughts? How big of a deal is this? If LinkedIn Learning rolls out its changes as originally proposed, what will your library do? (And if you decide to ditch LinkedIn Learning, what resources will you be turning to?)
OLC - RISD 