Design a site like this with
Get started

LinkedIn Censorship May Look Harmless, But It’s A Serious Threat To Our Way Of Life

Photo by Viktoria Danielovu00e1 on

Does LinkedIn simply monitor the platform to make sure the rules aren’t violated?

Or are the rules applied disproportionately?

Microsoft now owns LinkedIn.

Who owns Microsoft?

70% of its shares are held by institutional investors:

  • Vanguard Group Inc.
  • Black Rock Inc.
  • State Street Corp.

These companies invest in other companies. They have a conflict of interest with regard to allowing LinkedIn users to post content that threatens their financial portfolios.

Further, LinkedIn does not take a neutral stance or refuse any discussion of non-training/non-work related matters. Rather, it endorses certain views on certain issues very clearly, reporting them as “news” regardless of whether the “news” is one-sided or distorted.

Some excellent examples:

  • Covid-19 “vaccine” safety risks.
  • The entirety of the recent Ukraine narrative, from beginning to end, including demonizing Russia and minimizing the presence of neo-Nazi extremist thugs as part of the Ukrainian government.
  • The general election of 2020, which many Americans believe to be fraudulent, for good reason.

Frighteningly LinkedIn deleted Dr. Robert Malone’s profile for questioning the safety of COVID “vaccine” technology he himself had pioneered.

Further, LinkedIn even had the gall to actually censor American journalists’ profiles on its Chinese site. (They got called out and changed course.) This is an indication of yet another improper conflict of interest that should be questioned vigorously.

As a result, LinkedIn is not just a gathering place for professionals but an influencer of the narrative. It is a publisher in its own right.

LinkedIn takes money from the very entities whose corruption cannot be questioned lest the professional life of the affected individual be adversely affected.

At this moment, I find myself now off the platform, simply because I was too opinionated and shared too much already-public information. The last really serious piece of information was the 200 page transcript of Dr. Jonathan McGreevey’s interview in which he named names associated with severe corruption in the U.S. government.

I am certain that if I were instead a vociferous endorser of the views of LinkedIn’s sponsors, there would be no issue whatsoever.

I am certain that if I were an apologist for “Big Pharma” I would be doing just fine on the platform.

Here are some articles about censorship on LinkedIn, which is, like Twitter, not at all a safe space for conversation about the things that matter in work and/or in life.

To gather material for the links below, I simply went to “” (a neutral search engine) and typed in “LinkedIn censorship.” The results speak for themselves.

How ironic: The same people training us to be authentic leaders at work are teaching us–through both censure and censorship–to be phony, self-censored superficial yes-people.

Unsurprisingly many of the complaints seem to come from conservatives, although it appears minorities are expressing concern as well.

There is hope for the future, thanks to a piece of legislation called the “21st Century FREE Speech Act.”

“The bill would repeal Section 230 and replace it with language requiring ‘reasonable, non-discriminatory access to online communications platforms’ by classifying them as ‘common carriers.’”

Makena Kelly, “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene throws support behind Section 230 repeal bill,” The Verge, April 28, 2022,

Section 230 gives Big Tech carte blanche to censor users:

All they have to do is say that your content is “otherwise objectionable” and they get away scot-free.

It is time to reform the law, because Americans should not have to walk around with our mouths sealed shut simply due to views that threaten the business interests of the institutional investors behind Big Tech.

In the meantime, if they let me back on the platform, I won’t be able to post anything substantial anymore. If others post views that are factually wrong, disinformation, misinformation, propaganda or simply ideologically biased, so be it–unless there is some protection for diversity and inclusion of views under the law.


By Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal (Dossy). All opinions are the author’s own. Public domain.

%d bloggers like this: