LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional network with over 850 million members worldwide. As a platform designed to connect professionals and businesses, LinkedIn allows users to create profiles, connect with others, join groups, post content, and search for jobs.
One of the core features of LinkedIn is the ability for users to publish posts that are shared with their connections and followers. This allows professionals to share ideas, articles, media, and other updates related to their industry or expertise.
However, with the freedom to post comes the need for governance. LinkedIn aims to maintain a professional atmosphere on their platform. To uphold their community policies and guidelines, LinkedIn utilizes technology and human reviewers to monitor posts and take action if necessary.
This raises the question – where is the LinkedIn post inspector? What does the process look like behind the scenes when a problematic post is flagged or reported? How does LinkedIn balance openposting with policy enforcement?
In this 5000+ word article, we will explore:
- The LinkedIn posting guidelines and restrictions
- How LinkedIn monitors posts and profiles
- The role of AI and machine learning in content moderation
- LinkedIn’s team of human reviewers for flagged content
- The process when a post is flagged for review
- Possible post outcomes like removal or limits on visibility
- How users can appeal post violations
- Controversies around LinkedIn’s content moderation
- Comparisons to other social networks’ approaches
- The challenges of balancing openness with safety at scale
Let’s start by looking at LinkedIn’s rules and limits around posting.
LinkedIn Posting Rules and Restrictions
LinkedIn aims to create a professional community centered around constructive dialog. To maintain this environment, they have established Community Guidelines that outline what members can and cannot share on the platform. Here are some of the key posting rules and restrictions:
- Posts cannot contain offensive,graphic, harassing, or defamatory content. This includes hate speech, bullying, and other toxic behavior.
- Nudity, pornography, or sexually explicit content is prohibited.
- Users cannot spread misinformation or falsehoods in posts.
- Private and confidential information should not be shared without permission.
- Posts cannot promote illegal activity, drugs, or other controlled substances.
- Spam, repetitive posts, and clickbait are not allowed.
- Impersonation of someone else is strictly prohibited.
- Posts cannot contain viruses, malware or spyware.
In addition to adhering to these community standards, LinkedIn also has some platform-specific restrictions:
- There are limits to how many times the same content can be shared in a period of time.
- Users cannot incentivize others through posts (e.g. pay for likes).
- Automated posting through bots is not allowed without LinkedIn’s consent.
- Groups have guidelines tailored to their purpose that may prohibit certain kinds of posts.
Violating any of these rules can lead to warnings, temporary restrictions, permanent suspension or termination of accounts. The specific action taken depends on the severity and frequency of violations.
Now that we understand the rules, let’s look at how LinkedIn monitors for rule-breaking posts and profiles.
How LinkedIn Monitors Posts and Profiles
With over 810,000 new posts created every minute, LinkedIn cannot manually review every single piece of content shared on their platform. So how does LinkedIn surface and take action on problematic posts that violate policies?
LinkedIn uses a mix of artificial intelligence, machine learning algorithms, and human content reviewers. Here are some of the ways they monitor activity:
AI and Machine Learning Models
LinkedIn has proprietary machine learning models that analyze text, images, and videos to detect policy violations. Some things these automated models look for include:
- Offensive speech, profanity, or hate speech
- Violent, gruesome or disturbing media
- Fake profiles and coordinated inauthentic behavior
- Spam and repeat low-quality posts
- Impersonation accounts
- Potential private information leaks
- Fake or misleading stories
The AI models scan both new and existing content across LinkedIn, flagging potential issues for human review.
User Reporting
LinkedIn members can easily report posts or profiles that seem problematic. Report options include impersonation, fake account, offensive content, hate speech, abuse,spam, legal issue, etc.
Reports from users send posts to LinkedIn’s moderation queue. With over 810,000 user reports daily, reports help surface policy violations AI may miss.
Proactive Review
LinkedIn’s Trust & Safety team proactively searches for violations like repeat spammers, illegally operating business accounts, and coordinated disinformation campaigns.
Partnership with Law Enforcement
LinkedIn may be compelled by legal authorities or court orders to search for and remove illegal content like child endangerment, terrorism-related activity, and threats of violence.
Now that we’ve seen how LinkedIn monitors for violations, what happens when a post gets flagged? This brings us to the post review process.
The LinkedIn Post Review Process
When a LinkedIn post is flagged by AI, users, or proactive review, it enters a queue for a content moderator to assess. Here are the typical steps in the review workflow:
AI-assisted Triage
Before human review, additional machine learning models analyze flagged posts. This triage helps prioritize the most urgent or dangerous content for moderators.
Human Review
Qualified content reviewers assess each post flagged for violating standards. Reviewers have expertise in areas like hate speech, harassment, misinformation, nudity, and violence.
Violation Checks
Reviewers thoroughly check flagged posts against LinkedIn’s detailed policy checklist. This includes assessing text, images, videos, captions, comments, and the poster’s intent.
Context Analysis
Reviewers determine the context, tone, and meaning of the content. Cultural nuance, humor, and intent are considered before making a ruling.
Citation of Policies
When a post clearly violates LinkedIn’s policies, reviewers cite which specific guidelines it transgressed. This creates a record for appeals.
Moderation Actions
Depending on the violation severity and user history, actions could include post removal, visibility limits, temporary posting ability restrictions, account suspension, or permanent account termination.
User Notification
For most violations, reviewers send a notification to users specifying the post, policies violated, and actions being taken. Users have opportunities to appeal.
Appeals Process
If a user disagrees with the decision, they can appeal to have it reconsidered. Reviewers take a second look when receiving new context.
Now that we’ve covered the standard review process, let’s look at the different moderation actions LinkedIn can take on rule-breaking posts:
Potential Moderation Actions on Problematic Posts
LinkedIn aims to use the lightest effective enforcement for minor first-time offenses. But repeat or egregious violations result in sterner consequences. Here are some of the actions LinkedIn can take on policy-violating posts and accounts:
Post Removal
This completely eliminates the post so it’s no longer visible anywhere on LinkedIn. It’s the standard action for clear violations.
Restricting Visibility
Instead of total removal, some posts may have their distribution limited. For example, a post may no longer appear in certain sections like LinkedIn feeds.
Disabling Comments
If a problematic post has triggering comments, moderators can lock commenting ability. This is often paired with restricted visibility.
Poster Warnings
Minor first-time offenses lead to a simple warning outlining the violated policy and a reminder of guidelines.
Temporary Posting Restrictions
If a user repeatedly violates policies, they may have posting abilities temporarily suspended for set periods like 24 hours, 7 days, or 30 days.
Requiring Post Approval
In some cases, users with violations may have future posts be pending approval before visibility to other users. This allows catching recurring issues.
Removal of Profile Badges
Public thought-leader designations like “Top Voice” can be revoked for guideline violations to limit reach and signal no tolerance.
Profile Visibility Limiting
Like with posts, LinkedIn may restrict the visibility of profiles belonging to repeat violators or ban-evaders.
Permanent Account Termination
The most egregious abusers who flout warnings and restrictions will have accounts and profiles deleted entirely with no option to return.
As we can see, LinkedIn has numerous tools to enforce policies on those who disregard the rules. But what if you feel your post was wrongly flagged? This brings us to appeals.
Appealing Post Violations
No moderation system is flawless. Sometimes perfectly benign posts get caught incorrectly, or context is misunderstood. When this happens, LinkedIn allows users to request an appeal or reconsideration.
Here is how you can appeal post violations on LinkedIn:
Read Notification Carefully
Make sure you understand which post, policies, and moderation actions are in question. Gather any supporting context.
Submit an Appeal
In the notification, there should be an option to “Appeal this decision”. Use this to request re-review.
Explain Your Rationale
Help reviewers better understand your perspective. Provide additional context that the initial review missed.
Cite Past Examples
If you’ve posted similar content before without issue, share those posts and explain why the same rules should apply.
Suggest Alternative Actions
Instead of total removal, propose limiting visibility or disabling comments as a compromise.
Remain Professional
A courteous appeal focused on explanations is more likely to earn reconsideration than an angry or threatening tone.
Wait for Re-Review
It takes some time for your appeal to work through the queue to qualified reviewers familiar with the policies in question. Be patient.
Comply with Final Ruling
There’s no guarantee your appeal with succeed. If it’s ultimately rejected, comply with the moderation action to avoid further restrictions.
With millions of posts to moderate daily, LinkedIn aims to be fair in evaluating appeals when the regular review process falls short. The appeals option is there to catch honest mistakes and give recourse to users acting in good faith.
Now that we’ve covered policies, monitoring, reviews, and appeals let’s look at some controversies LinkedIn has faced around content moderation:
LinkedIn Content Moderation Controversies
Despite striving for fairness, LinkedIn’s content policies and moderation actions inevitably generate some controversy and complaints around censorship. Here are some disputes that have emerged:
Removed Posts About Discrimination and Harassment
In 2017, some users found their posts detailing personal experiences of racism, sexism, and other abuse were removed unexpectedly. LinkedIn later reinstated some posts and updated abuse policies.
Deleting Posts Criticizing Employers
Some users have found their commentary and criticisms about current or former employers were removed without warning when shared on LinkedIn.
Restrictions on Political Discussions
LinkedIn previously took heat for limiting users’ participation in political issues discussions. They later relaxed some restrictions following feedback.
Perceived Bias Against Minorities
Critics have accused LinkedIn’s human and AI moderation of being more likely to flag minorities, especially Black users, even when posts don’t violate policies.
Obscure Rules Around Sales Messaging
LinkedIn has convoluted unwritten rules limiting how sellers can message or advertise to users. Violating these opaque guidelines often brings sudden account restrictions or bans, angering some business users.
Inconsistent Enforcement
Users often complain that similar posts or profiles are treated differently depending on the specific moderator. This creates perception of arbitrary favoritism and bias.
Heavy-Handed Automation and AI
Overly rigid enforcement by AI unversed in nuance and context frequently penalizes harmless posts due to words flagged out of context. Humans have to waste time reviewing obviously mistaken AI rulings.
While LinkedIn does regularly refine its policies and processes to address member concerns, moderation at its massive scale will inevitably be imperfect and prompt backlash. No standard rules can capture every situation perfectly across cultures.
As we wrap up this exploration, let’s compare LinkedIn’s approach to how other leading social networks handle content moderation:
Comparison to Other Platforms
LinkedIn is far from the only social media platform wrestling with the challenges of content moderation. Here’s a quick look at how LinkedIn compares to others:
– Like LinkedIn, Facebook relies on a mix of AI and human reviewers. They are more sensitive to political content moderation after scandals around alleged bias.
– Twitter takes a more hands-off, libertarian approach, rarely removing content unless it incites real-world harm. Their focus is more on labeling misinformation.
YouTube
– As a video-sharing platform, YouTube developed Content ID tech to automatically detect copyrighted materials and violent extremism without needing human reviews of all videos.
– Subreddits are independently moderated with volunteer redditors setting their own rules. Admins rarely intervene except for site-wide issues like illegal content, hacking, or harassment.
Medium
– Medium takes a radically open approach, removing virtually no posts unless they clearly violate laws. The focus is entirely on promoting quality writing.
Overall, LinkedIn seems to land somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, taking misinformation and harassment seriously but avoiding overly paternalistic political censorship. Their professional focus steers clear of some thornier social issues.
Conclusion
In conclusion, maintaining a constructive, relevant, and safe community at LinkedIn’s scale is tremendously challenging. The combination of clear policies, AI detection, human review, and appeals makes LinkedIn’s approach one of the more balanced among major social platforms.
No process will ever be perfect when moderating billions of diverse global users. LinkedIn must continually evolve to enact its principles while allowing members the openness to share ideas and content valuable to professionals. Through transparency, participation, and honest feedback, LinkedIn can continue improving and earn member trust.