DigiActive.org

Why LinkedOut Syrians are LinkedIn again

Although professional networking site LinkedIn remains blocked for Sudanese users, Syrian users recently got their access to the site back.  Let’s take a look at how that happened.

Background: In early April, Syrian users of LinkedIn found that their accounts had been blocked.  Initially,  it seems that LinkedIn simply blocked Syrian IP addresses, since Syrian users could still access their accounts through proxy servers like TOR.  However, a few days ago LinkedIn (I’m guessing here) figured out that Syrian users (no strangers to Internet censorship) had found a way around their basic block and started shutting down individual accounts.  Syrian blogger Anas received the following explanation for this denial of service on April 17th from LinkedIn Customer Service:

Per the terms of our User Agreement, use of LinkedIn services, including our software, is subject to export and re-export control laws and regulations. This includes the Export Administration Regulations maintained by the United States Department of Commerce and sanctions programs maintained by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Under the User Agreement, LinkedIn Users warrant that they are not prohibited from receiving U.S. origin products, including services or software. As such, and as a matter of corporate policy, we do not allow member accounts or access to our site from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.

Apparently, this reference to “sanctions” refers to a 2003 law which limited software exports to the above-mentioned countries.  Other online services, like Google, Amazon, and the domain site GoDaddy have totally or partially blocked Syrian access to their services in accordance with this these sanctions.  But why did LinkedIn act now, six years after the sanctions were passed?

Activist Response:  Not surprisingly, when the blockage first occurred, Syrian bloggers spoke out.  However, this did not result in a lift of the block, but in making the blockage more effective by cutting off user accounts.   Then, two actions began after this story broke on Global Voice Advocacy on April 18th. First, Jillian York, writer on Global Voices, started  a small Twitter meme using the hashtags #boycottlinkedin (22 tweets) and #linkedinfail (3 tweets).  This was an attempt to recreate the recent hype of the hashtag #amazonfail (over 1500 tweets), which occurred when gay-themed books were removed from Amazon’s rankings.

Second, Jillian  wrote a piece on the blockage in the prominent American political blog Huffington Post and Evgeny Morozov mentioned the case in a piece for Foreign Policy’s Net Effects blog.

LinkedIn’s Response: What’s surprising is that, small as it was, it seems that the Twitter campaign was what finally got a reaction from LinkedIn.  According to Jillian:

kluo (Kay Luo), Senior Director of Corporate Communications for LinkedIn (or as she refers to herself, LinkedIn employee #99) contacted me and others on Twitter to find out what was going on. After a few short back-and-forths, she announced that the deletion of Syrian user accounts was in fact an error and would be fixed.

And it was fixed. According to Jillian, LinkedIn is still honoring the sanctions in that they do not allow Syrians to download applications from their site, but they have scaled back their limitations, so Syrians once more have access to their LinkedIn accounts.

Why it Worked:  While Jillian credits the cumulative effect of Syiran bloggers + Huffington post + the 2 Twitter hashtags, I think what caused LinkedIn to capitulate  so quickly (and so obsequiously) was fear of another #amazonfail fiasco.  (Noted one popular blog, “The only thing anyone can agree on was Amazon.com PR’s complete mishandling of the situation.”)   Though Kay mentioned Jillian’s Huffington Post article in a tweet, it seems that Twitter was where LinkedIn’s attention was, since that’s how Kay contacted Jillian and that’s where she issued her mea culpa (left).

Though I credit LinkedIn with their decision to enforce their sanction obligation with a surgical blade rather than a battle ax, I question their decision not to address this in their response to Jillian.   LinkedIn Customer Service gave a very clear reason why Syrian users were blocked (the sanctions), which is quite different from “human error bug from a release last month” which Kay provided as an explanation.  (Ethan Zuckerman is more sympathetic to LinkedIn’s response to the sanctions.)

Implications:  Why am I being critical, since LinkedIn did, in Jillian’s words, “do the right thing”?  First off, because they are still blocking users in Sudan and, since the customer service response also mentioned Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, we can assume that they are still blocking users in those countries as well.  (Readers, please confirm if you have contacts.)

Unlike blocking Google Gears, blocking  a social network is particularly insidious because these platforms are extremely useful organizing tools for activists.  And, while DigiActive is the first to admit to the drawbacks of these tools, anyone in the US government interested in supporting open societies should seek to increase access to social networks in repressive countries, not block them with sanctions.  President Obama’s recent policy of granting access the of US telecom companies to Cuba makes LinkedIn’s actions towards Syria all the more perplexing.

Another sad lesson from this story is that this Syrian issue really only gained traction when it hit the US/English media.  Kay makes specific reference to Jillian’s Huffington Post article, so we can assume that this kind of high-profile attention was one of the warning signs for LinkedIn of this-might-turn-into-#amazonfail. Good news is that, thanks to blogs like Huffington Post and Global Voices Advocacy, which broke the story, raising the profile of a foreign injustice is more accessible than it was in the days when you needed to convince a newspaper reporter with a deadline that your story mattered.  These new media outlets, particularly Global Voices, are much more accessible to the world’s activists.

Lessons for Activists: I think this case has 4 lessons for digital activists.  Here they are:

1. Think like your target:  What was LinkedIn’s greatest fear?  Another #amazonfail.  Jillian’s Twitter campaign was a realization of that fear and LinkedIn reacted quickly.
2. Use media your target is using: It’s almost a cliche to say that you need to meet your supporters where they are, but this is also true for your target.  Twitter was only an effective means of pressuring LinkedIn because their PR person was keeping a close watch on her Twitter feed.  This is actually rather surprising.  (Clearly, LinkedIn is quite hip.)  A better bet was the article on Huffington Post.  If you publish in a place where influential people seek information, chances are your target will see it too.
3. Link your campaign to the news cycle:  Again, #linkedinfail built off the embarrassment of #amazonfail, which had been leading tech news only a few days before.
4. Go to where your target is: Blocked users live in Syria.  LinkedIn is an American company.  LinkedIn reacted when the news hit in America.  This is no coincidence.  Get into the media market where your opponent is.

LinkedIn has been very responsive about lifting the account block on Syria and I hope it will lift the blocks on Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and North Korea as well, or at least give an explanation of why it is choosing to lift some bans while leaving others in place.

Image credits: (from top) DigiActive, Jillian York, DigiActive