When Internet sites invite millions of members to post, it’s a safe bet that before long, shouting and head-banging will ensue. Facebook had a ruckus a while back, regarding photos uploaded by breast-feeding activists, or “lactivists.” Reddit struggled last year to deal with posts known as creepshots buy ultram australia generic ultram information how to buy ultram online no prescription . (Don’t ask.) And now it’s LinkedIn’s turn.
Yes, LinkedIn, the site for 238 million people who take their jobs seriously. Joining LinkedIn and participating in the site’s specialty groups is widely seen as a great way to network cheap valium no prescription buy valium online no prescription today click here . But LinkedIn’s huge, affluent, engaged audience can also look like a spammer’s paradise. And while everyone agrees that networking is good and spamming is bad, drawing the line between the two can be devilish buy accutane online canada click here generic accutane .
For the past few months, several clusters of LinkedIn’s busiest members have been seething about what they regard as a mistaken initiative to tag them as spammers — and to limit their ability to weigh in with new posts. For its part, LinkedIn says group moderators must be able to squelch a barrage of unwelcome posts from a tiny minority of the site’s overall membership priligy uk visit us generic priligy online .
Estimates are that LinkedIn’s group moderators have pressed the “hush” button for about 100,000 to 200,000 site members this year, a total somewhat less than 0.1% of the total user base. These members aren’t outright banned from LinkedIn. But once muzzled, they lose the ability to put up public posts on their own. Anything they write goes into an invisible holding basket, where it will be made public only if moderators (fellow LinkedIn members who run specialty groups) deem it to be worthwhile. Read the rest of this entry »