Simple question: is LinkedIn a platform that believes in the principle of free speech or not?

If it does believe in free speech, then why are its content moderation and adjudication policies over content far more stricter than what is allowed by governments in the USA or UK?

If users do not like the content they see, then LinkedIn provides plenty of tools for that user to block such content form their feed – not doing so and reporting content that falls within the parameters of free speech and then LinkedIn restricting that account, is the epitome of anti free speech.

LinkedIn markets itself to be an inclusive and diverse company:

LinkedIn’s user policies and terms are unfit for purpose because they are so broad and ambiguous and thus, highly subjective, prone to abuse.

Which means if the team adjudicating over content isn’t diverse and representative of the entire LinkedIn userbase, representing the full spectrum of views and backgrounds, then the content moderation will reflect that bias.

And we see that manifest on LinkedIn every day. For many years now.

We have asked LinkedIn to disclose diversity data on their Content Moderation and Trust and Safety teams, and any other teams that are involved in the content moderation and adjudication process.