Sider AI flags ghost jobs on LinkedIn

An X post on September 2 put a familiar job-market complaint into a new format: a browser AI tool marking some LinkedIn listings as possible “ghost jobs.” The post, published by user Diptish09, showed Sider AI flagging openings that appeared to lack contact details or a working application path, according to screenshots shared on X. The post did not identify the employers in the screenshots, and Reuters could not independently verify the individual listings from the images alone. The episode landed amid broader scrutiny of job-board quality and hiring transparency. LinkedIn’s own career-products leadership has said some companies do post jobs without intending to hire immediately, while also arguing that applicant silence can cause users to overestimate how common the practice is. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in July that his office had opened an investigation into LinkedIn over alleged “ghost jobs” shown to paying subscribers. ### What exactly did the post show? The September 2 post by Diptish09 said Sider AI was identifying supposed “ghost jobs” on LinkedIn and included screenshots described as examples. The images suggested the tool was looking for missing recruiter contact information and missing or broken application endpoints rather than confirming whether a company had formally closed a role. Sider’s public website describes the product as an AI browser sidebar and agent for web use, with more than 10 million active users and more than 100,000 five-star ratings. (fastcompany.com) The site does not, in the material publicly visible there, spell out a dedicated LinkedIn “ghost job” product or a published methodology for how such a flag would be assigned. ### Why are people using the term “ghost job”? Fast Company reported in June 2025 that LinkedIn’s head of career products described ghost jobs as listings some companies post with no intention of hiring. The same article said LinkedIn research found nearly half of job seekers viewed not hearing back as a top pain point, more than half heard back from less than 5% of jobs they applied to, and 69% said the process lacked transparency. (sider.ai) Those conditions have made the label broader online. In practice, users often apply the term to stale listings, evergreen pipeline roles, duplicate postings, or jobs that remain visible after hiring has slowed or stopped, even when there is no proof a company intended to deceive applicants. That distinction matters because a missing response does not by itself show a posting was fake. (fastcompany.com) ### What does LinkedIn say job seekers should look for? LinkedIn’s career-products chief said in the June 2025 interview that the company had added hiring insights including a company’s typical response time and whether a job post is verified. The executive also advised job seekers to watch for postings that seem too good to be true, interview offers sent by text, or requests for upfront payment. (fastcompany.com) Those signals are different from the ones shown in the Diptish09 screenshots. The X post focused on absent contact details and missing application routes, while LinkedIn’s public guidance highlighted verification and response-time indicators. ### Why is the issue getting more attention now? Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on July 15, 2026 that his office was investigating whether LinkedIn misled users by promoting and profiting from “ghost jobs” while marketing itself as a trusted place to find work. (fastcompany.com) His office said the inquiry was examining whether Premium subscribers were shown listings that were not legitimate hiring opportunities. Paxton’s office said it had issued a Civil Investigative Demand seeking documents, data and internal communications tied to LinkedIn’s advertising, verification practices and Premium services. Fox Business reported that Texas officials cited monthly Premium prices of about $39.99 for Premium Career and $69.99 for Premium Business. ### What can be verified from here? (foxbusiness.com) The September 2 post can be verified as an example of social-media scrutiny directed at LinkedIn listings and at AI tools now being used to assess them. The screenshots do not, on their own, establish that the jobs shown were fake, closed, or intentionally deceptive. The next public markers are likely to come from named participants rather than anonymous screenshots: LinkedIn’s own job-post verification signals, any response from Sider about how it labels listings, and filings or statements from the Texas attorney general’s investigation. (foxbusiness.com) (fastcompany.com)