if you can, then try to take linkedin premium which may have premium support. My meta business manager got banned. No luck with any support. I got meta blue tick with meta premium subscription for 2 months and then in premium support i connected to live agent and they restored my banned meta business manager.
Fixing this problem would result in more tickets from accounts flagged as "bad actors." So first you pay for fixing the problem, and then you pay to resolve the tickets. Maybe nobody at LinkedIn wants to pay for it?
Naturally, it is not in LinkedIn’s interest to change this; the corporation’s behavior is logical and understandable. But that’s not the real question. What about the community’s reaction? Has this simply been accepted as a given—normalized and justified? And what about the rank-and-file support staff who send you a template—telling you that you’re writing from the wrong email address and that you should use the one linked to your account—do they know they are peddling a blatant lie? Or do they not know? Or perhaps they simply choose not to know? "We were just following orders; we didn't know anything." I am narrowing the scope of the issue as much as possible: I am not discussing why accounts end up "restricted"—whether that’s fair or not—nor am I addressing other problems. I am focusing solely on this one specific aspect.
I don’t know. But how do you explain the fact that this remains almost unknown, even though this system behavior has existed for years? For instance, try asking ChatGPT or Gemini about this —the AI don’t know, which is quite telling.
if you can, then try to take linkedin premium which may have premium support. My meta business manager got banned. No luck with any support. I got meta blue tick with meta premium subscription for 2 months and then in premium support i connected to live agent and they restored my banned meta business manager.
Fixing this problem would result in more tickets from accounts flagged as "bad actors." So first you pay for fixing the problem, and then you pay to resolve the tickets. Maybe nobody at LinkedIn wants to pay for it?
It sucks for those banned erroneously.
Naturally, it is not in LinkedIn’s interest to change this; the corporation’s behavior is logical and understandable. But that’s not the real question. What about the community’s reaction? Has this simply been accepted as a given—normalized and justified? And what about the rank-and-file support staff who send you a template—telling you that you’re writing from the wrong email address and that you should use the one linked to your account—do they know they are peddling a blatant lie? Or do they not know? Or perhaps they simply choose not to know? "We were just following orders; we didn't know anything." I am narrowing the scope of the issue as much as possible: I am not discussing why accounts end up "restricted"—whether that’s fair or not—nor am I addressing other problems. I am focusing solely on this one specific aspect.
Many large companies have issues like this. I think it's just incompetence.
I don’t know. But how do you explain the fact that this remains almost unknown, even though this system behavior has existed for years? For instance, try asking ChatGPT or Gemini about this —the AI don’t know, which is quite telling.