I’m Unsubscribing from All Moderated LinkedIn Groups

LinkedIn groups were once a valuable space for industry professionals to exchange ideas, challenge conventional thinking, and engage in meaningful discussions. However, many groups have adopted a level of post-moderation that stifles conversation rather than fostering it. While moderation should focus on filtering out spam and blatant advertising, too many groups have shifted toward policing thought—deciding which perspectives are acceptable and which are not. That’s why I’m leaving them.

Moderation Should Prevent Spam, Not Censor Thought

The purpose of moderation in any professional forum should be to maintain a high-quality space free from irrelevant noise—think promotional posts, link dumping, or obvious scams. But when moderators start filtering out posts based on subjective judgments about whether an idea is "worthy" or "appropriate," they cross the line from quality control to intellectual gatekeeping.

Ideas should rise or fall based on peer engagement, not the personal biases of a moderator who believes they are the arbiter of professional discussion.

The Best Business Discussions Are Uncomfortable

Great innovation comes from debate, and debate is inherently uncomfortable. In a properly functioning professional group, someone might post an idea that others disagree with. Instead of being blocked before it is discussed, it should be met with counterarguments, discussion, and intellectual refinement.

When moderators remove posts simply because they challenge the prevailing view, they aren't protecting the group; they’re ensuring its stagnation.

Censorship by Moderation Leads to an Echo Chamber

A group where only certain viewpoints are allowed is no longer a discussion forum—it’s an echo chamber. LinkedIn groups should be places where professionals can share ideas, test theories, and engage with differing perspectives. If a post is well-reasoned and professionally written, it should not be removed because a moderator finds it too "controversial."

By restricting discussion, these groups are pushing away the professionals who drive real conversations, leaving only a cycle of agreement and empty affirmation.

Where I’ll Be Engaging Instead

Rather than wasting time posting in groups where content is arbitrarily blocked, I’ll focus on direct engagement—commenting on posts in my feed, writing original content, and participating in open discussions where real ideas are exchanged. Business thrives on debate, and I’ll continue seeking spaces where that debate is encouraged rather than suppressed.

If LinkedIn groups want to remain relevant, they need to remember their core purpose: facilitating professional discussion, not policing it. Until then, I’m out.