Listen to the article
A conservative advocacy group recently criticized LinkedIn after the social media platform temporarily removed a post supporting President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts, sparking outrage among conservatives online and threats to abandon the platform.
The State Freedom Caucus Network (SFCN) shared a post on January 27 across multiple platforms, including X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn, stating: “.@DHSgov is carrying out the essential task of keeping our country safe. Biden let over 10M illegal aliens enter our states, many being violent criminals and pedophiles. Every state must ensure collaboration with ICE and CBP to remove them. Our caucuses are on the frontlines leading their states to support @POTUS’s mission to keep Americans safe!”
While the post remained visible on X, LinkedIn flagged and removed it as “hateful speech,” according to screenshots shared by SFCN on Thursday. The group expressed their frustration publicly, stating, “Apparently protecting children is ‘hate,’ but letting actual predators roam free is fine. @elonmusk doesn’t censor us, but @LinkedIn does! We’ll be deleting our account as a result.”
The incident quickly gained traction in conservative circles, with many directing their criticism at LinkedIn, which was co-founded by Reid Hoffman, a known liberal megadonor who sold the company to Microsoft but remains on its board. Conservative commentator Dustin Grage urged users to “delete LinkedIn,” calling it “a garbage woke platform that provides little value.” The influential conservative account LibsofTikTok also weighed in, questioning why LinkedIn was “censoring Conservatives” and encouraging followers to delete their accounts.
LinkedIn responded to the controversy, telling Fox News Digital that “this was removed in error, and we quickly corrected it.” According to Andrew Roth, president of the State Freedom Caucus Network, he initially received a “removal notice” via email. After the situation gained attention through LibsofTikTok, LinkedIn sent another email stating that upon review, they determined the post didn’t violate their policies, and apologized for the mistake.
Roth expressed skepticism about LinkedIn’s explanation, saying, “Yeah, right.” He added, “I guess wokeism is still alive and well, but we will continue to fight it. First step is to not engage on the LinkedIn platform ever again. Second step is to tell the world what they did.”
The incident highlights the ongoing tension between conservative voices and social media platforms. Conservatives have long alleged bias and censorship across various platforms, even when, as in this case, the content is reinstated shortly after removal.
Daniel Cochrane, a Senior Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Technology and the Human Person, characterized the situation as following a “predictable model” of Big Tech behavior: “Censor first and then ask for forgiveness later.” He noted that while platforms typically claim mistakes or miscommunications, their content moderation systems operate with little transparency, creating a “dearth of accountability.”
Cochrane suggested that even if platforms don’t explicitly target specific groups or messages, “liberal biases” can be “baked into their algorithmic moderation systems” which might “disproportionately flag and demote conservative voices.” He concluded that “without greater accountability, the status quo of arbitrary censorship is a feature of Big Tech platforms, not a bug.”
This incident occurs amid broader national debates about immigration enforcement and social media content moderation practices. The controversy underscores the significant role social platforms play in political discourse and the growing divide between tech companies and conservative users who feel their viewpoints are unfairly restricted online.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
The removal of this post raises questions about LinkedIn’s content policies and their application. It’s important for social media platforms to balance free expression with appropriate safeguards against hate speech.
Agreed. Content moderation is a complex issue with no easy answers. Platforms need to strive for fairness and clarity in their policies.
This is a sensitive issue that touches on important questions about immigration, national security, and free expression. While I may not agree with the post’s content, I’m concerned about the potential for bias in LinkedIn’s moderation decisions.
I share your concerns about transparency and fairness in content moderation. These are complex topics that require nuanced, evidence-based discussion.
The removal of this post raises questions about the challenges social media platforms face in balancing free speech and content moderation. Reasonable people can disagree on these issues, and open dialogue is important.
Well said. Maintaining a constructive, fact-based discourse is crucial when discussing sensitive topics like this, even when we have differing views.
This incident highlights the ongoing tensions around immigration, national security, and free speech on social media. While emotions can run high, a thoughtful, fact-based approach is needed to address these challenges.
Well put. Tempering strong opinions with nuance and respect for differing perspectives is crucial when discussing such divisive topics.
The removal of this post raises valid concerns about potential bias in LinkedIn’s content moderation. However, platforms must also navigate the complexities of hate speech and misinformation. Striking the right balance is an ongoing challenge.
Exactly. Content moderation is a delicate balance, and platforms need to be transparent about their policies and how they are applied.
I can understand the concerns of both sides here. Immigration policy is challenging, with valid arguments on multiple fronts. Ultimately, any platform’s content rules should be applied fairly and transparently.
Well said. Consistency and transparency in content moderation are important, regardless of one’s political views.
This incident highlights the ongoing tensions around content moderation and the tricky balance platforms must strike between free expression and mitigating harmful content. A measured, impartial approach is needed to address these challenges.
Absolutely. Content moderation is a complex and often contentious issue. Platforms must strive for transparency and consistency in their policies and application.
This is a complex issue that touches on immigration, border security, and content moderation. While reasonable people can disagree, it’s important to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and focus on facts and constructive dialogue.
I agree, nuance and civility are key when discussing sensitive topics like this. Fact-based discussion is much more productive than partisan posturing.