by Allen Williams
In 2012, I received an invitation to join the Linked in social media platform from one of the local county commissioners that I became acquainted with in the publication of newpatriotsblog.com. I am not by nature inclined to schmooze or chat on social media platforms; however LinkedIn offered a unique opportunity to publish technical material that challenges the ‘science' of our day. So I viewed the opportunity to present and discuss innovation as paramount to professionals of any discipline.
When I first arrived, the platform was largely a conglomeration of employment offerings, company product information and presentation of various interests specific to professionals in certain fields. The platform was largely devoid of stifling regulations on ‘free' speech or expanded definitions of ‘hate' or racial bigotry so that all could participate on equal footing. All conservative thought and ideas were welcome regardless of ethnicity, color or political persuasion; one was expected to defend his or her assertions with sound arguments and good taste.
However, once conservative ideas began to gain a foothold by challenging the prevailing mantra on social, scientific and political issues, the platform began to quietly ‘restrict' various participants while revising the platform's ‘community policies': https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies. Note that their term ‘restriction' means suspension as I was without NOTICE or WARNING. On Sept 24, 2020 I suddenly could no longer login to the platform:
appeal process for such circumstances is devoid of DUE PROCESS which
ensures that virtually NO ONE is reinstated: I could not login-to review
my case which suggests there really wasn't anything substantive to
corroborate their case in the first place.
Social media enjoys greater protection against litigation for its actions under section 230 of the Communications Act than conventional media thereby emboldening platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter etc to censor viewpoints that do not align with their professional or community standard policies. This practice censors facts or information which conflicts with these standards violating the first amendment. President Trump recently filed a petition regarding 'how social media platforms are being unfairly flagged and censored' to restrict conservative viewpoints. In lieu of LinkedIn's suspension of my account, I found it necessary to file a complaint with the FCC adding my voice to that of others unfairly suspended. Presently there is no FCC enforcement mechanism to curb social media abuses, it is with fervent hope that the litany of complaints following the president's petition will result in restriction of social media's lawsuit immunity thereby resulting in genuine reform. The intended result being a more open platform to all points of view. My letter to the FCC (full wording):
Dear Chairman Pai and Commissioners:
I am writing today because the FCC has no complaint mechanism in place for social media access restriction to a platform predicated on supposed violations of 'community standards' which often conflict with free speech rights. I've checked your available forms at https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us and there is nothing listed that addresses this concern. In my case the restriction occurred on LinkedIn after the FCC 45 day comment period on the Trump Administration's petition on 'how social media platforms are being unfairly flagged and censored', in my case suspending me on Sept 24, 2020 without warning.
I feel this is the best way to make the FCC aware of a growing problem wherein social media are determining what information, ideas, topics are 'acceptable' on their platform essentially instituting ex parte Orwellian censorship intended to prevent unwanted ideas from gaining credibility or exposure on the Internet.
LinkedIn claims its site is for professionals where ideas can be exchanged, debated and news germane to the public may be disseminated but the platform has adopted the same type of censorship as Facebook and other restrictive platforms while still permitting certain salacious materials to abound. I was subjected to unwanted solicitations by young women posting improper pictures of themselves on LinkedIn which went on for months of which I have a photocopy of the woman's request to join my group documented in my rebuttal to LinkedIn. Read my experience on Sitejabber here: https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/linkedin.com#429
Social media platforms are emboldened by the lack of section 230 definition (and zero enforcement) of where immunity ends under the communications act resulting in conservative journalists such as Cheryl Chumley, commentator for the Washington Times to be suspended; https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/craig-shirley/linkedin-targets-conservative-journalist-infantile-censorship I have read many of Mss Chumley's reports (and even commented on a few) on Linked in and have never found grounds to suggest she should be restricted.
Allen K. Williams, P.E.
Mich #30236 (Ret)
Allen K Reference # *******03687 View your case(s) on our Help Center
Auto-Response (09/25/2020 07:41 CST) … This is a support email in
response to your request submitted on LinkedIn…. LinkedIn Corporation,
1000 West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085... LinkedIn and the LinkedIn
logo are registered trademarks of LinkedIn...
Thanks for contacting us. Someone from our support team will get back to you as soon as possible.
Your LinkedIn Customer Experience Team
My (9/25/2020) Response
This is asinine as you well know I MUST BE LOGGED IN TO VIEW the alleged case link below and my earlier email below documents that it is not possible to review my 'so-called' case. This is either a gross error on your part or you are implementing Silicon Valley's censorship protocols prior to the election.
The statement made by your system that I may continue as a 'guest' after providing my identity confirmation DOESN'T work. I'm still blocked and I wonder what might have precipitated such action on your part so close to the election?
LinkedIn Response (09/26/2020 03:30 CST)
Reference # *******03687 View your case(s) on our Help Center
I'm sorry for not having a quick answer about your issue. I've forwarded your message to another group for additional review and advice. We'll be in contact with you as quickly as possible, but your issue may require additional research, which may extend your wait time.
If you can log into your account, you can always check the status of your case on LinkedIn:
1. Click the Me icon (your profile photo) at the top of your LinkedIn homepage.
2. Select Open Quick Help from the dropdown and click Go to Help Homepage.
3. On the Help page, click your profile photo in the top right, and then select View your cases from the drop down to see the status of any cases you've submitted.
Please note that if you aren't able to login for any reason, you won't be able to check the status of your case. We ask that you don't create any additional cases in the meantime. We're working as quickly as possible to resolve your inquiry.
Thanks for your patience.
Member Safety and Recovery Consultant Member
[I DIDN'T initiate ANY complaint CASES. When it's the platform that initiates the suspension, the accused CAN"T ACCESS ANYTHING in the system. Rather than giving me a response, Ellen sent me to another LinkedIn customer support member to which I responded:]
My (9-26-2020 7:11 pm) response
How about telling me what the issue is? Surely you know enough to do that.
You may reply to this case for up to 14 days
I'm sorry it's taken this long to get back to you and thanks for being so patient.
We've identified that you've posted or comments on the posts/articles of LinkedIn members that appear to be unsolicited and not in compliance with our user agreement.
Posting content that is meant to harass or abuse another person is in violation of LinkedIn's Professional Community Guidelines https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/global/id/34593. We have these policies in order to protect the value of the LinkedIn network for everyone.
Due to privacy reasons, I will be unable to disclose the exact information of the violation.
Further, it is not OK to use LinkedIn's services to threaten violence or property damage, or for hate speech acts, such as attacking people because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, political or religious affiliations, or medical or physical condition.
Your LinkedIn account has been suspended, pending your response stating that you'll adhere to LinkedIn policies from this day forward.
LinkedIn Member Safety and Recovery Consultant
I don't know what you're attempting to do here but the link you provided below: View your case(s) on our Help Center DOES nothing;. It simply lists a series of 'help' sources which have nothing to do with my 'so-called' case. Either you people pay little attention to detail or this is just your version of FACEBOOK censorship. I can't LOGIN because you are NOT just restricting my account, you've already suspended it.
This is amply demonstrated by your unwillingness to state the 'specifics' of your own 'guideline(s)' that I've supposedly violated leaving me with the only option of responding to the vague allegations contained in your emails, for example:. "Posting content that is meant to harass or abuse another person is in violation of LinkedIn's Professional Community Guidelines https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/global/id/34593. We have these policies in order to protect the value of the LinkedIn network for everyone."
Another statement that is NOT true as I've received abusive statements from other Linked in members on occasion and the platform took no action suggesting an innate bias.
These policies exist so that anyone can be restricted or suspended on nothing more than an accusation. The policy states: "We ask every member on LinkedIn to act responsibly. If you see something that you believe may violate our policies, please report it to us. This includes whether it appears in profiles, posts, comments, conversations, or anywhere else. These reports, along with our automated defenses, help us identify and prevent abuse and misbehavior. Please use the reporting tools responsibly and only for their intended purposes. To learn more about how to report inappropriate behavior, visit our LinkedIn Safety Center."
This is subjective reader opinion rather than objective facts based on Libel, Slander, or tangible evidence but rather are predicated on the current level of 'political correctness' which in itself violates the rights of others holding dissenting opinions or beliefs that the American First Amendment was intended to protect. I can see that you expect me to apologize for something I didn't do replying solely to the vague allegations contained in this series of correspondences, to wit: "We've identified that you've posted or comments on the posts/articles of LinkedIn members that appear to be unsolicited and not in compliance with our user agreement." And this statement means.? Why don't you state the specific guideline that I violated as I quoted above? Is it because that guideline is in itself so vague that it wouldn't corroborate your allegation? The obvious take away here is '. Don't comment on anything unless a comment is directed to you specifically by name which is patently absurd. I challenge assertions and ideas in my comments and posts and expect objectors to defend their positions equally as I do. 'Social justice' is an anathema to freedom.
"Further, it is not OK to use LinkedIn's services to threaten violence or property damage, or for hate speech acts, such as attacking people because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, political or religious affiliations, or medical or physical condition."
Let's cut the crap, shall we? You have no real evidence that I've violated any of your listed conditions, especially threatening violence. And 'Hate Speech' is now defined as holding beliefs or making statements contrary to the official state narrative. I'm equally not a racist or white supremacist or whatever the latest term is. This isn't a policy or a guideline, it's an emotional opinion based on the erroneous premise that a user's words have 'offended' unnamed parties giving special credence to why the US 6th amendment exists, that is, the right to confront one's accusers. Your guideline definitions connote censorship and you've aptly demonstrated that user 'appeal' is only for appearance because you've already suspended my account. I have watched LinkedIn do that to a number of other members on the platform, most notably Wayne Allyn Root.
This exercise is intended for nothing more than for me to apologize for something I didn't do and agree to conditions that you have failed to elucidate beyond the vagaries of your purported 'professional' community guidelines which are neither 'professional' nor in compliance with the US bill of rights. And the fact that you are a California company that has no respect for our Constitution and its guaranteed liberties is especially offensive to me.
[ More recently Cheryl Chumley, conservative journalist at the Washington Times, who doesn't respond to comments on her LinkedIn posts was suspended. Why? Most likely for ‘offensive and unwanted' post content, what else? This is unsupportable because she posted the same article at the New York Times: (https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/craig-shirley/linkedin-targets-conservative-journalist-infantile-censorship) which is the very definition of censorship.]
by Allen Williams
had a Webnode site since April of 2012. The last two years, 2017, and
2018 I've experienced many site performance problems. I suspect that
I've been sabotaged and I have the film evidence to back up the
Read my linkedin article and watch the two films below that I made detailing how Webnode limits the user's ability to convey information. The first film opens with a display of an existing Webnode Text block.
Follow the pointer to watch my entrance
into edit mode.and prepare space in the block to receive the new photo
and headline. Note that this is an existing block that already contains a
photograph and external link.
Next I add the new photo, resize it and adjust the supporting text. Follow the pointer to where I save the new information and VOILA - It's not there! Interestingly enough, when confronted Webnode tried to blame the Firefox browser. But, I have used version 48.0.2 well before the time of these mysterious failures to incorporate edit changes and I never experienced a problem. Besides the same text block works properly everywhere else on the site except the editorial page where I filmed this event. Next they claim it's an HTML 'source code' problem': Their response
"We have looked at what you mentioned and what would be best would be to send us a copy of the source code in a .txt file so that we can see what is happening with that. Our thinking is that something in there is causing the issue. We have not upgraded the editing system in over 1 year as we have moved to our newer system. This means that any issues that come up are due to updates in Firefox."
Really? Do they block access to the editor block's source code as well? Watch the second film as I enter a Webnode text block and attempt to access the Source code, something I have done successfully everywhere else.