21–30 of 85 posts
Sign up for one of their paid plans and resubmit your support requests. They’ll help a paying customer much quicker than non-paying customer.
I can't log in.
Expect your issue to be resolved promptly. The HN front page proudly serves customers from all megacorporations, including but not limited to the classic FAANG, Microsoft and many others.
Is your account locked and customer service unwilling to review your case? Did all your data disappear and you can only reach a chat bot from 1997? Stop wasting time with official channels, post on HN front page today!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't log in.
Maybe create a new account (even if it requires VPN / new device ID, new email, new IP), then get paid plan on that, then contact support?
Linkedin doesn't do avatars. They do pictures of you. You are not a cartoon character. > Some examples of photos that shouldn't be used are: > Avatars, emojis, or cartoons The straight ban seems excessively harsh, but fundamentally the pic does seem to be against their policies. https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a1377087/profi...
"seems excessively harsh" seems like a knowing understatement. It is not "excessive", it is incorrect . The link you posted provides clear language: "Your profile photo may be removed by LinkedIn if it doesn’t comply" According to this, the reason they were banned is not due to their avatar (but we can't know because LinkedIn has declined to elaborate, according to the OP).
That doesn't really follow. Especially since they specifically said the avator is the issue:
>they removed my avatar for not complying with the TOS.
Though unclear how OP is talking about both avatar removal AND account ban? Feels like perhaps half the story.
How they got from avatar issue to a whole account ban I can't tell you but I'd imagine there is something in the ToS that makes it viable (impersonation etc).
Not saying it's fair ofc...but plausible
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had no idea about this policy. Then again, I hate linkedin with a passion. However, I'm pretty sure I saw tons of violations of this policy all over the place, so I bet this is going to result in a lot of bans if they happen to be doing a crackdown. The funny thing is, on a platform like linkedin, my instinct would be to use an actual photograph. But in protest of a policy like this, I'd rather just have nothing in…
The whole photographs thing is a real mixed bag anyways. Seeing a picture to jog your memory is sometimes great. But it's also a great way to enable racial and age discrimination: see the face and decide you interpret all the rest of the context in the profile differently (even inadvertently). Sure, you'll know the race / age / etc eventually, but at least if the person is in the door they have a chance instead of ge…
This can be enabled in truth by names as well. Most notably obviously for race/national origin. A notable study found that the exact resume received fewer call backs when the name was a typical white name vs a name indicative of ethnicity. To a lesser extent you can also consider age in relation to name as some names have drastically increased or decreased in popularity over time.
This makes me think that a productive solution would have to take place in HR as opposed to grass roots. Ideally you really want people to review candidates initially without benefit of name or face and only after selecting a subset view potentially biasing information.
Maybe there should be a HR mode for LinkedIn which by default hides these details and shows other items while allowing you to make a saved list of prospective hires to pass down the food chain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"seems excessively harsh" seems like a knowing understatement. It is not "excessive", it is incorrect . The link you posted provides clear language: "Your profile photo may be removed by LinkedIn if it doesn’t comply" According to this, the reason they were banned is not due to their avatar (but we can't know because LinkedIn has declined to elaborate, according to the OP).
>According to this, the reason they were banned is not due to their avatar That doesn't really follow. Especially since they specifically said the avator is the issue: >they removed my avatar for not complying with the TOS. Though unclear how OP is talking about both avatar removal AND account ban? Feels like perhaps half the story. How they got from avatar issue to a whole account ban I can't tell you but I'd imagin…
Timeline:
Day 1: Account is restricted/blocked, on login I'm presented with ID verification and a "we'll let you know".
Day 2: I receive an email as a follow up to the ID verification. "Your appeal has been denied and your account will remain restricted". No reason given beyond having "misrepresented my identity".
Day 2.5: Slightly later, I receive an email saying my avatar has been removed because it didn't comply with the TOS and I should upload a real photo.
[flagged]
Linkedin doesn't do avatars. They do pictures of you. You are not a cartoon character. > Some examples of photos that shouldn't be used are: > Avatars, emojis, or cartoons The straight ban seems excessively harsh, but fundamentally the pic does seem to be against their policies. https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a1377087/profi...