Ben Scholzen
LinkedIn seems to have double standards for anti-Semites on one hand and everybody else on the other.The New York Post reports, “LinkedIn banned ‘proud Jew’ Manhattan CPA for pro-Israel posts, lawsuit claims” and adds that the platform failed to remove posts and comments such as “Death to Israel,” and one that depicted Jews as “cruel and emotionless animals that need to be extinct.” These are but two of equally bad or even worse examples, including a wish that Hitler had “finished the job.”
The entire complaint, which may be viewed here, alleges among other things that LinkedIn committed breach of contract, namely, the rules posted on its own Web site. “42. Pursuant to LINKEDIN’s own terms and conditions of its user agreement, in the event of any violations by the user, LINKEDIN is to notify the user of the specific violation.” “58. LINKEDIN breached its contract with STROHL by failing to specify and/or inform him of the alleged ‘violation’ of its ‘terms and conditions…'”
If the above allegation is true, then LinkedIn looks guilty of breach of its own one-sided “take it or leave it” (adhesion) contract that it posted on its website. This, as I recall from my MBA business law class long ago, looks very ominous for LinkedIn. “Courts often resolve ambiguities or inconsistencies in favor of the weaker party, as the stronger party is presumed to have had greater control over the drafting process.”
You Keep What You Don’t Delete
More to the point is, however, an issue I raised some time ago with regard to social media platform moderation; “you keep what you don’t delete.” That is, you own the platform and you are free to delete whatever content you want, terminate user accounts for any reason or no reason — although the latter might not pass muster in this lawsuit — but then you are responsible for what you don’t delete, especially after it is brought to your attention.
“You keep what you don’t delete” is exactly what demoted MoveOn.org from a major political influence to second or third-rate status in 2006. It failed to remove the most vicious imaginable hate speech against Jews, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians along with a post that depicted black soldiers as potential mutineers who should not have weapons. MoveOn tried to claim it didn’t see the hate speech, but its own FAQ page said the moderators read each post twice to get ideas. In addition, their users voted up the hate speech on an overwhelming basis. MoveOn is still online but I don’t remember even hearing about it during the 2024 election cycle; it was a prominent player in 2006.
<img alt captext="Ben Scholzen” class=”post-image-right” src=”https://conservativenewsbriefing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/linkedin-sued-for-alleged-anti-semitic-discrimination.jpg” width=”450″>The same issue should have finished the Obama campaign in 2008, as the site welcomed anti-Semitic commentary along with depictions of black Hillary Clinton supporters as house slaves, complete with blackface narrative such as “Massa Clinton been good to us. Git on ‘way from here Obama. You gon cause problem fo us all!!” It’s LinkedIn’s turn to experience “you keep what you don’t delete.”
What LinkedIn Didn’t Delete
In addition to the two items cited by the New York Post, I have personal knowledge that I saw the following posts or comments, reported them, and was told they did not violate the Professional Community Policies. Some were apparently later removed, e.g. after enough people complained or they became subjects of public controversy, but they were not removed when they were first brought to LinkedIn’s attention. When you report a post, LinkedIn blocks you from seeing it so I took screen shots first.
- “I guess someone in Germany in the 40s didn’t complete the job, and the whole world is suffering.”
- “Jews have no legal land on this planet earth see the history but they want greater Israel. Prejudice nation. Grabbing the whole world in the name of loans and economically crucial way hanky panky.”
- I reported as hateful speech a photomanipulation of Benjamin Netanyahu with a toothbrush mustache, and combination swastika and Star of David, and was told, “A member of our Trust & Safety team reviewed the post and found it does not go against our Professional Community Policies.”
- “Basically it’s all about money… the jews have cemented themselves into usa us politics and business.” This was however later removed.
- “You wouldn’t tell the world that the Judeo-Nazis are living on land that belongs to those who fire the rockets…”
- “finally a Jew acknowledges the vaccine is a weapon. I knew it all along. The worst part is the whole nation of Israel poisoned its people.” The individual’s profile is now gone from LinkedIn, so action may have been taken later, but I was told when it happened there was no violation.
- “To be elected you have to pledge allegiance to the Neocon-Zionists cabal and the Military Industrial Complex.”
- “Every time I think this under race has reached the rock bottom of abjectness, they show they always find a way to go lower. Am always wondering what their mothers were eating before they let them get out of their [excrement emoji]sses.”
The Jewish Chronicle alleges, “‘Jews are pigs’ remark and term ‘Zionazi’ are not breaches of our rules, says network.” “Another post referred to ‘Zionazi criminals on $tolen Palestinian land’. LinkedIn did not remove the post, but said the remark did not breach its rules and suggested the complainant unfollow or mute the user in question.” See also UK Lawyers for Israel on this matter.
As for what is posted on LinkedIn even today, a Google search on site:linkedin.com and “Zionazis” is highly instructive. Another user alleges, as discovered by a Google search, “OK, Microsoft, so an ‘Hitler was right’ comment under a LinkedIn post about Israel/Palestine conflict ‘does not go against our Professional Community Policies’?”
Why is This Happening and What Can be Done?
The lawsuit alleges further, “64. Upon information and belief, LINKEDIN outsources much of its content moderation to countries known to harbor a lot of antisemitic sentiment including but not limited to Pakistan and South Africa.”
Perhaps this lawsuit will finally get to the bottom of the problem. In the meantime, the right course of action might be to send LinkedIn’s advertisers — many have ethics and compliance hotlines — screen shots of Trust & Safety approved hate speech so the advertisers can, to paraphrase General Sir Charles Napier, decide LinkedIn can manage its platform however it wants and they will spend their advertising money however they want. I also encourage users in Germany, where LinkedIn has a substantial presence, to report to German authorities all posts that suggest in any way that “Hitler was right” because that is verboten under German law. Even if the people who post this material are not subject to German law, LinkedIn is.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way.
Image: Ben Scholzen
