Hacker News Reader

Comment by version_five | Hacker News Reader

What part of the TOS did it violate?

In the LinkedIn Professional Community Policies[0], which is linked from the User Agreement[1], which is linked from the Terms of Service[2], they state,

> Do not use an image of someone else, or any other image that is not your likeness, for your profile photo.

It seems extremely unfair to me to go straight to a ban based on the profile picture alone. But it is clearly part of their terms of service (not that I would expect anyone to know this).

[0] https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-polici...

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement#obligations

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/legal/l/service-terms

In the follow up email (sent after the ban, and with a helpful "Please upload a new one", which I cannot do because it's restricted), they cite that "profile photos can get flagged for: (...) Not being an image of you or an actual photograph".

> they cite that "profile photos can get flagged for: (...) Not being an image of you or an actual photograph".

That actually seems fair to me, considering what LinkedIn is.

That seems very strange that they would _ban the account_ rather than deleting the profile image and rendering a placeholder instead.

Do no expect common sense from IT companies. Google is even worse.

It's pretty normal to ban people instead of trying ro fox the issue. It's probably cheaper to them.

We have no rights and no protection from corporations other than "Do business somewhere else"

It is important to highlight that a TOS is not over the law, so the TOS could be partially not enforced in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com