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:
LinkedIn's
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.
Update 10/19/2020
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)
LinkedIn Auto-Response (09/25/2020 07:41 CST)
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.
Regards,
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?
Allen Williams
LinkedIn Response (09/26/2020 03:30 CST)
Reference # *******03687 View your case(s) on our Help Center
Status: Open
Hi Allen,
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.
Regards,
Ellen
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.
Allen Williams
LinkedIn Response (09/26/2020 03:41 CST)
Reference # *******03687
Status: Waiting For Information View your case(s) on our Help Center
You may reply to this case for up to 14 days
Hi Allen,
We've identified activity that shows you're sending
unwanted/inappropriate content via LinkedIn messages. This type of
content violates the LinkedIn User Agreement and Professional Community
Policies, which states that you agree not to:
• Harass, abuse, or harm another person.
• Send spam or other unwelcomed communications to others.
We ask that you cease this type of communication, and remember that we
expect all members to use a professional demeanor when using LinkedIn.
For complete details, please see our User Agreement and Professional
Community Policies.
We've restricted your account pending your response that you'll adhere
to the LinkedIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies going
forward. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Savio
LinkedIn Member Safety and Recovery ConsultantMY (9-26-2020 8:13 pm) RESPONSE: Hold on there friend!
You'll have to be a lot more specific about the 'community policies'
that I've supposedly violated than simply claiming that I'm sending
unwanted and 'inappropriate' comments via linked in messages'. You need
to provide some specific examples as to what I've supposedly done rather
than disguise your accusations in nebulous terms before I agree to
anything.
First of all, you can begin by defining 'messages' because your system
supports 'peer to peer' individual communication as well as general
posts to either my network or any linked in viewer. You should be able
to tell very quickly from the system's archives that I NEVER initiate a
personal message to anyone except a few times to give a 'heads up' on
general news articles that I've posted or a professional paper that I
recently published. The system should tell you that I only RESPOND to
messages that are sent to me. I don't send salacious or sexual material
nor do I engage in any form of bullying, sexual harassment or sexual
innuendo. Now if you do as complete a job of 'investigating' as you
maintain, the archives should verify what I've alleged. That said, I
believe you have no evidence of my sending inappropriate content using
the standard general dictionary definitions of these terms.
The issue in point seems inclined towards 'viewpoint discrimination'
which means that I'm posting articles of general information that the
public should be aware of which are neither salacious, vulgar,
threatening or intimidating BUT nevertheless are 'offensive' and
unwanted per your community standards that are starting to appear very
much like Facebook's 'AI' style censorship. I think your system will
verify that I've published nothing unsavory unless of course you regard
conservative viewpoints and opinions as unsavory. And if so, we will
have a problem.
If you suspend me or restrict my access over 'unwanted/inappropriate'
material that has been redefined by your community standard policies to
mean what I've outlined above, you are in violation of my first
Amendment rights and THERE WILL BE consequences.
Allen Williams
Response (09/29/2020 03:46 CST)
Reference # 200925-003687
Status: Waiting For Information
Hi Allen,
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.
Regards,
Savio
LinkedIn Member Safety and Recovery Consultant
My (09/29/2020 09:40 CST) Response:
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.
Allen Williams
LinkedIn Response (09/30/2020 07:58 CST)
Hi Allen,
Thank you for writing back into LinkedIn. I will try to address your query in the best manner possible.
As mentioned in previous communication, your comments or posts on
articles were reported and found inappropriate as per the professional
community guidelines. These policies apply to all members.
https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies
I also understand that you have been a victim and you have received
abusive statements from other LinkedIn members. We kindly request you to
report such incidents so that these can be investigated. If you see
something you believe may violate our policies, whether in profiles,
posts, messages, comments, or anywhere else, please report it to us.
We don't allow bullying or harassment. This includes abusive language,
revealing others' personal or sensitive information (aka "doxing"), or
inciting or engaging others to do any of the same.
[A typical example of a spirited comment from a LinkedIn member directed at me which would be regarded as violating their infantile 'professional' community standards.]
Please know that we respect the right of all members to freely express
themselves. We don't monitor, filter, or remove member-generated content
from our site unless they are inappropriate as defined in our User
Agreement and Professional Community Policies. We understand that
differences of opinion happen, however, this doesn't justify flagging
content.
[11-20-2020: Last Picture in the series below is an example of my
posting 'unwanted or unsolicited information' in catching Linkedin
Editors shorting the number of recorded reads on an article entitled
'Hotel California' which depicted how the homeless were living on the
streets of LA and other major cities by some 1100+ individuals. Needless
to say there was no response, no apology, no explanation and the post
soon disappeared as if it never happened.]
After reviewing reported items, we'll take the appropriate actions. It's
against the LinkedIn Privacy Policy and Professional Community Policies
to share the identity of someone who flags an item. We have limited
ability to act on content appearing beyond our site unless it's in
direct violation of our brand.
We require all members to engage in a professional manner and this type
of content is not allowed. The account will continue to remain
restricted until to adhere and comply to LinkedIn user agreement and
abide by LinkedIn Professional Community Policies.
Regards,
Savio
LinkedIn Member Safety and Recovery Consultant Member
My (10-1-2020 8:33am) response
I find your replies to be quite disingenuous. You either have a problem
with nomenclature or you have redefined common terms to suit the
purposes of administrative action. If you understood the language, you'd
realize that:
My account is NOT restricted; it has been suspended but
apparently 'words mean whatever you wish them to.'
A brief glimpse into the so-called 'Linked in Professional standards:
"
These policies apply to all members. Depending on the severity of
violation, we may limit the visibility of certain content or remove it
entirely."
NO THEY DO NOT! Dependence is a function of ‘who' you are and your
political affiliations as evidenced by LinkedIn co-founder Reid
Hoffman's election shenanigans. The standard fails to mention that the
rank-and-file member will be denied access. Or is my supposed incident
simply too new for you to have adjusted the standards in time to cover?
The standard continues "
We don't monitor, filter, or remove
member-generated content from our site unless they are inappropriate as
defined in our User Agreement and Professional Community Policies."
Really? Then why didn't you simply remove my supposed offensive material
rather than choosing to suspend me while calling it a 'restriction" Or
did you already do that but just failed to mention it? As expected, it's
quite difficult to comply with standards that are fluid or a moving
target, i, e. When changes in standards are predicated on thoughts
someone doesn't like (or want) as reflected by its frequent updates.
This is the very definition of censorship.
"
As mentioned in previous communication, your comments or posts on
articles were reported and found inappropriate as per the professional
community guidelines."
This nicely explains why you wouldn't list any of my purported
'offensive posts' as 'examples of unprofessional 'ism'. To do so would
undermine the vagueness and credibility of your accusations especially
since nearly all my posts were excerpts from previously published
EXTERNAL articles.
"
I also understand that you have been a victim and you have received
abusive statements from other LinkedIn members. We kindly request you to
report such incidents so that these can be investigated."
Do you even understand the total absurdity of this statement? What is
the point of my reporting it when you are already aware of it? Here's a
news flash for you: professionals have (or should have) the
qualifications to defend their assertions, facts and opinions without
any help from 'Big Brother.' The exhortation to report 'offenses' has
its roots in social conditioning of others to contain free thought -
a
benchmark of Orwellian censorship.
"
Do not engage in unwanted advances: We don't allow unwanted expressions
of attraction, desire, requests for a romantic relationship, marriage
proposals, sexual advances or innuendo, or lewd remarks."
Oh please! If you bothered to investigate my messages along with the
posts as thoroughly as you stated, you would have found that a number of
young women with questionable profiles were doing exactly that to me,
how convenient of you to overlook this because it clearly suggests a
dual standard for complicity.
Take a look at the photo invitation I included from 'Helen Stevens' to
appreciate my remark. I posted a copy of her invitation to the Linked in
general population citing its inappropriateness AND NOT A WORD from
LInkedIn Editor/Censors!
The fact that one is required to 'complain first' suggests a
psychological conditioning of the subject to train the user to monitor
the social discourse of his or her peers which again is common practice
in authoritative societies.
"
We don't allow individuals or groups that engage in or promote
violence, property damage, or organized criminal activity. You may not
use LinkedIn to express support for such individuals or groups or to
otherwise glorify violence."
Judging from your responses, you don't accept articles or comments that
simply REPORT such actions without advocacy as I have done on Antifa,
BLM and the communist party. The actions you've demonstrated here
clearly conveys an active censorship environment where the platform
intention is to condition its users to accept 'social justice' in place
of 'due process' and 'inclusiveness' of thought so that all viewpoints
are equally valid and there is no prevailing ideology or absolute truth.
This is also a hallmark of Orwellian censorship.
"
Do not share content to interfere with or improperly influence an election or another civic process."
Oh please! Your hypocrisy is overbearing. "
Billionaire LinkedIn
co-founder and Bilderberg attendee Reid Hoffman, was caught staging a
false flag operation with fake Russian bots to influence the Alabama
Senate election."
http://www.camelotdaily.com/jewish-co-founder-reid-hoffman-implicated-jewish-pedophile-jeffrey-epstein-cover/.
This is clearly in violation of "
We have limited ability to act on
content appearing beyond our site unless it's in direct violation of our
brand."
LinkedIn's
Bilderberg association doesn't resolve well with the notion
of intellectual freedom but rather conveys a sound basis for the latent
censorship hidden in your 'professional standards'. It should now be
evident to the public as to how the LinkedIn standards have been
structured with an innate bias. We'll see how long your credibility
lasts now, eh?
If you were genuinely interested in 'professional standards' then you
would have set appropriate criteria for QUALIFYING' as a professional in
order to join Linked in as is the case for real professional societies
such as the
American Chemical Society, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers,
American Society of Civil Engineers, etc. Here's another news
flash for you: A crane operator is NOT a professional by any real world
standards I know of which places your 'alternate reality' in question.
I think the real intent here is pretty clear. Rest assured that the
abject hypocrisy on display at Linked in won't be lost on my readers.
Allen Williams
Epilog: Lastly the statement: "We've restricted your account pending
your response that you'll adhere to the LinkedIn User Agreement and
Professional Community Policies going forward."
So my appeal is reduced to carte blanche agreeing that I've done or said
something ‘inappropriate' without example, without the ability to read
what my accusers have claimed and without an unbiased hearing. Even if I
apologized for what I supposedly had said or posted, there's absolutely
no guarantee I would be reinstated. My ‘admissions' are intended to
protect LinkedIn from ensuing legal liability.
LinkedIn is an abysmal platform for conveying anything meaningful as
evidenced by the number of conservatives that have been restricted
(suspended) and I've already identified two prominent individuals. There
are many more.
The LinkedIn platform gives a false impression of professionalism and is
restricted to prevent unwanted ideas from gaining credibility or
exposure on the Internet. It isn't worth the effort to join and the
resultant social environment is right out of some dystopian novel.
