Political Activism on Linkedin: Are we protecting or abusing Free Speech?

In recent years, political activism on LinkedIn has seen a marked increase. I have joined the platform nearly 17 years ago, and have personally experienced the shift between what was once a primarily business-focused platform, evolving to include discussions that span the spectrum of world events, initially with the Arab Spring in 2011, and more recently - the war in Ukraine and the ongoing war in Israel and the horrendous rise in global Antisemitism. This shift has led to a sharp divide in opinions about whether LinkedIn is still serving its original purpose as a professional network.

While LinkedIn is a unique space that bridges personal networks and professional lives, the question remains: should political discourse have a place here? Many believe that it is a platform for business, not politics, while others argue that world events are inseparable from business, especially in today’s globalised market. In this article, I want to explore the middle ground—where LinkedIn can foster important dialogue while ensuring professionalism and factual integrity.

?????? ?????????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ??????????????????????

One of the biggest concerns about political activism on LinkedIn is the proliferation of unverified or misleading information. It’s disheartening to see a platform designed for professional networking become a breeding ground for half-truths, propaganda, and unchecked emotional outbursts. It’s even more troubling to see this content often go unchallenged, as users engage with plausible-sounding posts without bothering to verify their sources. Professor Dan Ariely expands on this in his book Misbelief - What makes Rational People Believe Irrational things.

This trend is not just limited to LinkedIn; it has swept across social media in general. But LinkedIn is not like other platforms. It is a business network, and we hold our professional connections to a higher standard. Shouldn't we, therefore, expect the same level of diligence from the platform itself?

???????????????????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????????????????? ????????????????????????????

What frustrates me most is LinkedIn’s algorithmic tendency to feed us content that aligns with our biases, making the platform an echo chamber for one-sided views. This might increase engagement and keep users on the platform longer—objectives that drive LinkedIn's business model—but it comes at a cost. Instead of fostering meaningful, balanced conversations, the platform can exacerbate division by showing users only content that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs.

There is an argument for freedom of speech, but this should have boundaries, particularly when it crosses into hate speech or inciting violence. Many countries already legislate limits on free speech when it harms others, so why should social media platforms be any different? Shouldn't LinkedIn, as a professional network, have an even greater responsibility to ensure that its users feel safe and respected?

In a podcast interview with Diary of A CEO's Steven Bartlett , Israeli Author, historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari argues in the most articulate way, the responsibility of social media platforms (including Linkedin) over the content they allow to publish:

????????????????'?? ????????????????????????????: ???????? ???????? ???????? ?? ????????????????

The common argument from social media platforms is that they are merely "platforms" and not responsible for the content users post. But this perspective doesn’t hold up when you consider traditional media. A newspaper or a television channel doesn’t just publish anything that comes their way—they exercise editorial control and bear responsibility for the content they distribute.

Likewise, LinkedIn should take responsibility for the content shared on its platform. Whether that means establishing stricter guidelines or stepping up fact-checking efforts, the platform has a duty to ensure that political discourse does not devolve into misinformation or hateful rhetoric. If traditional media outlets are held to journalistic standards, why not LinkedIn?

?? ???????? ?????? ????????????

LinkedIn needs to balance the fine line between free speech and maintaining a professional environment. The platform must foster open, constructive dialogue while protecting its users from harmful content and misinformation. I’ve personally reported profiles that were clearly fake, as well as posts that incited violence. In each case, I received the same response: “This content does not violate LinkedIn’s Community policies.”

LinkedIn must evolve its policies to better align with its stated mission: Connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful. The time has come for social media platforms, including LinkedIn, to take accountability for the content they allow. Whether that’s through stronger moderation, improved fact-checking, or more transparent policies, the platform must raise the bar.

In conclusion, political activism has its place, but LinkedIn needs to ensure that its community remains a safe, fact-based environment. It is not just a business network; it’s a platform where professional reputations are built and maintained. Let’s hold ourselves, and LinkedIn, to the high standards this platform was originally designed for.