The LinkIn Lawyer: Unprofessional Network

What's the point of LinkedIn? Their brand problem and their unprofessionalism. Censorship and brand value impacts.

The LinkIn Lawyer: Unprofessional Network

Welcome to!

a Newsletter edition of Business Games, where we cover critical & strategic thinking based on examples from international business, geopolitics, propaganda, and (bad) strategy—and where we're getting both more snarky and philosophical.

In this episode, I'd like to address the brand image of LinkedIn, censorship, and pose a question: What's the point of LinkedIn?

As usual, feel free to disagree with my position—but please, read through to the end, it won't be long.


What's the Point of LinkedIn? [03:09]

LinkedIn's Purpose [03:11]

All of this is a hypothetical thought exercise, so bear with me.

We want LinkedIn to reflect the best version of professional life
This is a community where we treat each other with respect and help each other succeed.

LinkedIn's Publishing Platform is an ideal forum to develop and strengthen your professional identity by sharing your knowledge and expertise in your job. It will be tied to your professional profile.

These are from LinkedIn's Professional community policies & Publishing Platform Guidelines, respectively, where LinkedIn implores:

Remember to be professional and don't post anything misleading, fraudulent, obscene, threatening, hateful, defamatory, discriminatory, or illegal.

What is LinkedIn and How Can I Use It? states:

A complete LinkedIn profile can help you connect with opportunities by showcasing your unique professional story through experience, skills, and education.

You can also use LinkedIn to organize offline events, join groups, write articles, post photos and videos, and more.

But what does any of this mean—and why there's a fundamental brand problem for LinkedIn?

LinkedIn wants to be a publishing platform, where professionals create and exchange content relating to their professional lives—this much is clear.

A LinkedIn Problem [04:54]

Now, suppose the following:

  • You're a white-collar professional, a "knowledge worker".

  • Your content is by definition "new knowledge".

  • This new knowledge is created using some information, together with your professional expertise, meaning new knowledge is a professional opinion: (new knowledge) = (info inputs) x (professional expertise) = (professional opinion)

    By LinkedIn's own purpose statement, posting such content is part and parcel of your LinkedIn subscription—they only do not allow fraudulent and misleading content. I provide and discuss their Misininformation Policy below.

  • Your job is a political and geopolitical observer, or an economist commenting on global trade relations, or a strategist for international business. In this case, your showcasing of your professional expertise, your professional opinion—your professional nous if you will—will by definition include discussing international conflicts, a notoriously sensitive and divisive topic.

  • Imagine further that your research takes you to critically look at the Western media presentation of the Bucha crimes narrative, and based on the cumulative Western and Ukrainian mainstream media-presented evidence alone, you conclude that:

    1. There is no credible evidence that Russian forces had anything to do with the alleged war crimes in Bucha,—and

    2. There is overwhelming (in your opinion) evidence presented in the Western and Ukrainian mainstream media (and on Ukrainian far-right social media) to implicate some pro-Kyiv forces in these war crimes.

  • You post this analysis on LinkedIn, with a link to your own platform, and somebody raises a complaint with LinkedIn that you're posting "misinformation".

In this very hypothetical situation, what's LinkedIn to do?

Damned If You Don't, Damned If You Do [06:50]

No matter what LinkedIn does, there's no winning:

  • If LinkedIn does not censor the content on the grounds that a) there is no evidence of misinformation because your content is using factual evidence from verified Western sources and provides professional commentary on this evidence (LinkedIn's purpose) and b) you're not claiming anything as fact—then the complainer would get vocal and offensive and claim that LinkedIn is "Putin's agent" which would be damaging to LinkedIn's brand image.

  • If, on the other hand, LinkedIn tries to minimize bad press and caves to the demand and censors the material claiming that they're a private enterprise and can do whatever they like on their platform—then you'd have all the reason to create bad press for LinkedIn based on their own mis-application of their own policy if not outright for free speech abuse and censorship. This would obviously hurt their brand image amongst the professionals, as it's impinging on the professional users of LinkedIn to use LinkedIn to showcase their professional nous.

The obvious calculation for LinkedIn is to evaluate the expected damage from either of these brand image threats—to uphold their brand purpose but be smeared as a "Putin's agent", or to poop all over their brand purpose—and choose the likely smaller one.

In the post-2022 world of Western hysteria about the conflict in Ukraine, in particular the one-sided coverage of this conflict in the West as part of what I claim to be "Russia bad" anti-marketing campaign,[1] the LinkedIn calculation will likely come to the conclusion that avoiding a "pro-Russian" smear is preferable.

So, LinkedIn will likely censor your post and dare you to involve the lawyers. Chances are, their pockets are deeper than yours and their ability to control the PR narrative is better than yours, so this type of damage is less to them.

Of course, if you're activism-minded and you believe that the truth is on your side, you'd probably create a post like this one where you explain everything and ask people to share, repost, and talk about this on social media—likely not LinkedIn although maybe on LinkedIn, too.

Because if LinkedIn—or any other social media—is going to cave to the political winds of the day and censor legitimate content, thus violating their whole raison d'être—their reason for existing, their purpose—then what would be the point of the likes of LinkedIn, indeed?

All of this is a highly hypothetical thought exercise, of course.

Next, I'll cover my own experience with LinkedIn censorship, step-by-step analysing their Misinformation Policy.

I use Twitter to post on this developing story—so check it out and RT 👇👇

Let's see if you agree with my analysis?

LinkedIn's Misinformation Policy [11:12]

Here is the LinkedIn's Misinformation Policy, copied verbatim on 3 February, 2023—I highlight in bold the parts that are the most relevant to this discussion:

It is a violation of LinkedIn’s Professional Community Policies to post false or misleading content. We remove specific claims, presented as fact, that are demonstrably false or substantially misleading. We also remove or label content that contains disputed claims relating to sensitive political or socially divisive topics.

Examples of false or misleading content

  • False claims that undermine trust and discourage participation in civic processes or misleads voters about the time, location, means, or eligibility requirements for voting

  • Claims that may induce panic or discourage others from taking safety precautions during an emergency, such as unfounded claims of threats, violence, or danger that could cause harm (e.g. looters are prevalent in an area subject to forest fires)

  • Content inaccurately presented as evidence of human rights abuses or military conflict in a specific location that is actually content from another location, event, or timeframe

  • Synthetic or manipulated media, such as doctored images or videos that distort real-life events and likely to cause harm to the subject, other individuals or groups, or society at large

  • Content that promotes harmful remedies or miracle cures, or otherwise discourages individuals from seeking or heeding professional medical advice

  • Claims or statements that directly contradict medical guidance from local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO)

  • Medical misinformation about the treatment, prevention, variants, and transmission of COVID-19, including claims that:

    • Medical or non-medical grade masks cause negative physical side effects
      Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective in the treatment or prevention of COVID-19

    • Approved COVID-19 vaccines may cause death, infertility, miscarriage, autism, or contraction of infectious diseases, including COVID-19

    • Approved COVID-19 vaccines implant tracking/surveillance devices or cause magnetism in patients

    • Those vaccinated against COVID-19 are more likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated individuals

    • COVID-19 was developed with funding or support from specific world leaders, public figures, or global health authorities

  • Medical misinformation about the prevalence or severity of COVID-19, including claims that:

    • COVID-19 does not exist or is a hoax

    • The virus and all variants have been eradicated or that the pandemic has ended

    • The symptoms, mortality rate, or infection rate of COVID-19 are no more severe than the seasonal flu

    • No one has died or become severely ill after contracting COVID-19

My Posts on Bucha and Mariupol Humanitarian Corridors [13:22]

Sometime during the week of the 23rd of January, 2023, I put up the following post on LinkedIn, referencing my article Mariupol & Bucha: Narrative v Reality with its link and artwork:

If we're connected on LinkedIn, then you likely know me professionally as an outstanding analyst—I'm banking on using this reputation to get you to read the evidence and analysis I present on Mariupol and Bucha.

I understand that in the current environment, where peer-reviewed academic research into 2014 Maidan by a Canadian-Ukrainian academic can be censored for political reasons, it might be difficult for you to allow yourself to comment on or otherwise engage with this piece.

Just read and think for yourself—is all I ask.

From May to July 2022, I researched and drafted this article.

With the new evidence from AP/PBS Bucha "investigation" released in October 2022—as well as the recent politically motivated censure of a peer-reviewed academic article in a premium journal targeting a Canadian-Ukrainian academic researcher who showed (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the massacre in 2014 Maidan was perpetrated by the Ukrainian far-right as a false flag operation to frame Yanukovich—I have finalised the draft and am comfortable that the presented material is solid.

I have exclusively used the Western and Ukrainian mainstream media information (+ one Al Jazeera), so there's zero "Russian propaganda" in here.

What IS in here is the application of the analytic and critical thinking principles to openly available information, in order to separate fact from fiction. This is possible to do even by using one-sided, severely biased sources.

The outcome is clear: in these two instances (shooting at Mariupol humanitarian corridors + Bucha) there is overwhelming evidence that these were perpetrated by the forces associated with the Kyiv regime; there is no credible evidence that the Russian or Donbass troops had anything to do with these.

Read and comment on the facts, please: how would YOU process the evidence I provide? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Ad hominem attacks will be blocked and reported.

Support my work by becoming a paid subscriber (two pricing tiers for your choice, low and normal, same benefits). The full article requires a free email subscription (at least).

ukraine #ukraineconflict #criticalthinkingskills #criticalthinking #mainstreammedia #propaganda #mariupol #bucha

Does LinkedIn Know What They Are Doing? [16:27]

Let's again review the potentially most relevant bits of the LinkedIn Misinformation Policy that could, maybe, be applied to my post—and go step-by-step.

  1. We can rule out all and any item relating to healthcare or COVID-19

  2. "Content inaccurately presented as evidence of human rights abuses or military conflict in a specific location that is actually content from another location, event, or timeframe"—a big fat nope, haven't done it. All the human rights abuses I covered were from the same location, event, timeframe.

  3. "Synthetic or manipulated media, such as doctored images or videos that distort real-life events and likely to cause harm to the subject, other individuals or groups, or society at large"—

    • I presented material from The Guardian, NBC News, SBS News (same or similar material, multiple channels),—

    • I showed exactly how it was doctored and manipulated,—and

    • I also showed the real, unedited video and highlighted exactly how The Guardian, NBC News, and SBS News manipulated it.

    • So, I call out the Western media on manipulating media, and I present direct evidence of such manipulation.

    • Apart from the above, I have not provided links to much media at all, and where I do, they had not been manipulated. I most certainly do not manipulate the media.

    • So, this point cannot apply to remove my post.

  4. "…post false or misleading content"—I do not post false or misleading content. I merely present the points made in the Western mainstream media, and I apply critical thinking and ask questions of these points, or I take them apart where they don't make sense (like, the Washington Post claiming that the Russian troops shot at their own location using unguided nail-like cluster munitions, which makes no logical sense unless the Russian troops are suicidal and insane).

  5. "…specific claims, presented as fact, that are demonstrably false or substantially misleading"—similar to the above:

    • I do not present any claims as fact, let alone those that are demonstrably false or substantially misleading.

    • If anything, I show that many claims made by the Western and Ukrainian media about the alleged war crimes in Bucha and Mariupol are "demonstrably false or substantially misleading".

    • In order to make my case, I use Western and Ukrainian media pieces themselves, their earlier articles, and I make sure that my arguments are based on verified material. Examples include Denisova's lies about rape (for which she was later dismissed by the Kyiv Government), an Amnesty International report on pro-Kyiv soldiers effectively using civilians as human shield, Kyiv officials giving quotes to the same effect in the Western media, etc.

    • Where the interpretation of the facts is not crystal clear, I present several alternative explanations, and call on the reader to make up their own mind.

    • I clearly specify what I do, how I do it, what is the evidence I rely on, and why I believe or do not believe certain explanations—everything is my own analysis and opinion on the interpretation of the facts presented in the Western (and Ukrainian) media.

    • Again, none of what I write can be misconstrued as "an untrue claim presented as fact"—because I do not present anything as fact—it's clearly an opinion. Well, I do present some things as facts, but in those cases I have several sources of verification (e.g., humanitarian corridors had been negotiated, and then shot at—both sides agree on these items as facts—they just disagree at who shot at the corridors, a question which I analyse).

    • Regarding Bucha in particular, I explicitly write the following passage:

      Does it mean that Russian troops did, in fact, commit war crimes in Bucha?

      To be honest, I don't know. Not "know" know, anyway. And nor do you. Neither of us had been there. We can only look at the evidence presented, ask our critical questions, and evaluate various explanations based on the likelihoods. What we must not do is believe the first horrific picture with somebody else's narrative—be it Russian or Western.

  6. Notice probably the most controversial statements from my LinkedIn post:

    The outcome is clear: in these two instances (shooting at Mariupol humanitarian corridors + Bucha) there is overwhelming evidence that these were perpetrated by the forces associated with the Kyiv regime; there is no credible evidence that the Russian or Donbass troops had anything to do with these.

    Read and comment on the facts, please: how would YOU process the evidence I provide? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis?

    • Again, it's bleedingly obvious that I present my opinion and not a fact.

    • I make two stark claims, but I'm very clear in my language:

      1. "[T]here is no credible evidence that the Russian or Donbass troops had anything to do with these." Notice, I'm not saying "Russians didn't do it"—a statement of fact. I'm merely stating that "there is no credible evidence"—I could've stated "in my opinion" for the LinkedIn lawyers, but I think this part is bleedingly obvious from the next sentence "how would YOU process the evidence I provide?"—even if not from the rest of my post.

      2. "There is overwhelming evidence that these were perpetrated by the forces associated with the Kyiv regime". Again, because I immediately invite people to read what I present and tell me how they interpret the information provided, it's immediately obvious that it's my personal opinion.

    • I write elsewhere: "What IS in here is the application of the analytic and critical thinking principles to openly available information, in order to separate fact from fiction."

  7. But none of this matters, because LinkedIn misinformation experts "also remove or label content that contains disputed claims relating to sensitive political or socially divisive topics."

    • So, now we come to the most interesting part of the Policy, an effective carte blanche that LinkedIn gave itself to literally do whatever the heck it wants.

    • Who decides what's a "sensitive political" or a "socially divisive" topic?

    • Who should decide what's a "sensitive political" or a "socially divisive" topic?

    • I can easily imagine that Bucha as a topic fits this "sensitive political" and "socially divisive" label—but this is where LinkedIn clearly went wrong, because in that case none of the below should be available on LinkedIn, either:

So, to sum up: to the question "Does LinkedIn know what they are doing?" the answer seems to be, "No, they do not."

At least insofar as it relates to the application of their own policy, they fail miserably.

Because either: the concrete parts of their policy do not apply to me, making their policy mis-applied—or: their carte blanche "We can do whatever we like" part of their policy is applied unevenly.

But maybe, that's by design?

It could be.

But in that case a "professional" network does exhibit an incredible level of unprofessionalism.

Go Get a Lawyer [29:35]

When I finally bugged LinkedIn enough via Twitter (hey, public shaming works!), they did get back to me via a ticket with this:

If you believe we have made a mistake in removing a piece of content, you can request a second look. This process is initiated through a link present in the email notification you would have received in regards to the removal of said content. Once you've requested that second look or Trust and Safety team will review the content again and notify you via email of their results. That result will be the final decision regarding the restoration or removal of the content.

… which, duh, I've done and also on the follow-up post—and they also included this:

We will not be able to interpret the LinkedIn User Agreement or Professional Community Guidelines. If you require clearification of the LinkedIn User Agreement or Professional Community Guidelines you may want to consider engaging a legal professional.

… to which, Wow!

First, "clearification" is not a word—a "professional" network should invest in trained personnel or at least a spell-checker. It's a Microsoft social media, so they have Word, at least.

Second, I have. My legal team is really good and want to do free stuff for me on this, it's fun for them. LinkedIn can expect a legal letter from them in the near future, if we do decide to go that way. And don't worry, I had generated a significant amount of business over the years for my legal team in all the client contract negotiations and whatnot, so this one they're happy to do pro-bono, as a stance against censorship and for free speech.

Also, they're as stuck as I am—this policy is not really that difficult, their read of the situation is the same as mine: LinkedIn doesn't know what they're doing, censoring stuff willy-nilly, in contravention to their own policy.

And also, what bugs me is that after ~5 times asking LinkedIn to help interpret their own policy for a dummy like me, they refused to do it.

Though now upon closer reading, maybe by writing "We will not be able to interpret the LinkedIn User Agreement or Professional Community Guidelines," LinkedIn quite literally meant what they wrote, as in: that they are simply not able to interpret their own guidelines. That's a possibility.

Let's Ponder Free Speech and the Law [32:59]

Apropos nothing—or something—here's an interesting website: What Does Free Speech Mean? from the United States Federal Courts, with examples of rulings of what does and does not constitute free speech:

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:

  • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).

    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

  • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).

    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

  • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.

    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

  • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.

    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

  • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).

    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

  • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).

    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

  • To incite imminent lawless action.

    Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

  • To make or distribute obscene materials.

    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.

    United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.

    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

  • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.

    Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

  • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.

    Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation.

Let's Ponder Censorship and Brand Value [36:53]

I covered most of this above, but let's get a bit more in-depth.

  1. Is free speech important? Yes, I think, it is. I've come to believe that it is one of the most important rights we have, and not only for the individuals, but also for the society as a whole. If people are able to speak their mind and debate, the truth is discovered, problems are solved, issues are discussed. If, on the other hand, people are censored or self-censor, issues fester, problems don't get discovered and solved on time, and conflicts can brew and blow up into violence.

  2. Should LinkedIn uphold free speech? It very much depends on what they see themselves as and what they want to be. I believe, there should be some free social media, and maybe that's Twitter. Maybe one could say that LinkedIn is a private enterprise with its own rules, it makes the rules and we can like them or not like them. It is, after all, a professional network. Not sure I necessarily agree, but let's assume for the time being that LinkedIn is a professional network and freedom of speech isn't its # 1 priority.

  3. Does LinkedIn uphold its own policies consistently? No, it does not. I just showed you on my own example, and then screenshots of other LinkedIn posts that could be classified as "sensitive political issues", that LinkedIn doesn't apply its own policy consistently. For a "professional" network, that's simply not good enough.

  4. Is LinkedIn "professional"? Does it look that way? If you have a policy where you basically say "we can do whatever we like" at any point in time (evidently) and then you admit that "we don't explain this to anyone"—that's a shit policy. In that case, you have governance and risk management and conduct risk issues.

  5. Does censorship of analytic opinion fit into the LinkedIn's brand? I'd claim, not. If you want to be a professional network, amongst office professionals, the so-called "knowledge workers", providing analytics on / thinking about / professional opinion on the current affairs is part and parcel of the job. LinkedIn's target audience literally lives off this type of content. And now you censor it? My job is an analyst, my work product is literally analysis of markets and strategy—and now you censor my work product? By doing so, you literally starve me of my ability to showcase my skills. What is then your brand, as LinkedIn, exactly? I'd claim, such behaviour by LinkedIn is damaging to its brand as a professional network.

  6. But of course, LinkedIn isn't a purely professional network, it's very much an activist network of a certain kind of "activism", let's call it "wokeness"—I'm not passing judgement, I'm merely stating the obvious. This goes back to the woke-washing / greenwashing / CSR-ing of capitalism over the past 5+ years especially. Virtue signalling—the absolutely cheap, consequence-free blah-blah PR activity by the so-called "professionals" on LinkedIn who seemingly have nothing professional to show but do spend time talking about "stakeholder capitalism" and "doing well by doing good"—virtue signalling is ripe and well on LinkedIn.

  7. So, LinkedIn's brand problem is this: on the one hand, it's not seriously a professional network where professionals can debate issues. How can it be, if analysis of the news and well-researched and well-supported opinion pieces are censored?—And on the other hand, given the post-2022 partisan hysteria in discussing geopolitics, LinkedIn would suffer a vociferous "cancel culture" backlash if it were to allow a balanced post that challenges the mainstream narrative on Bucha. That's exactly why calling Putin a "genocidal maniac" is totally fine on LinkedIn, but questioning Bucha narrative is not. Either way, LinkedIn and its ilk shall lose some of their customers.

  8. How do you reconcile this? What's the role of a social media, professional or otherwise, in 2023? This is a billion-dollar question, isn't it? Actually, it's a $44-billion-dollar question, to be precise. That's the price Elon Musk paid for Twitter. Elon's "free speech absolutist" stance seems to be somewhat suspect, but some things are certain: he did bring at least some form of balance to the social media landscape, in terms of what topics are allowed to be covered.

  9. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—also known by its alternative translation of "Who watches the watchers?"—makes the issue of free speech so thorny. My personal belief? Cancel culture and censorship is more dangerous than free speech absolutism. Can free speech be abused? For sure. Language is a mechanism of oppression, if you want to take that stance—but so is literally anything. The remedy to this is not censorship—it's education. Same as the remedy to misinformation is not a "Disinformation Czar" or any one of the similarly misguided initiatives from the USA's Biden, Canada's Trudeau, our NZ's own Ardern—the remedy is better education with critical thinking being a key element of this.[2]

Conclusion [48:41]

And that about does it.

I've given you a lot to think about.

  • I made a case for why LinkedIn is an un-professional network, and their decisions of where to err: either to uphold their purpose or cave to the cancel culture. It seems through their actions, they've chosen the latter. I can't say I blame them.

  • I also can't say I'll let it go. There'll be development of this story further. For example, LinkedIn un-censored one of my posts, but the post disappeared, so currently I'm trying to figure out what this means?

  • Most importantly, what do you think LinkedIn should be? What's the point of it, beyond a glorified business address book & CV repository? How can "knowledge workers" actually create & share knowledge, if they get censored?

  • How do you relate to the freedom of speech?

In the next post, I'll look at our former PM Jacinda Ardern's UN speech on Disinformation, Christopher Hitchens's speech on Free Speech, and some more thoughts about censorship in general.

I'm also working on a 2.5-hour transcript of one of my interviews, which I'll post imminently, I promise.

The developing story is here 👇👇

And now this really about does it.

Discuss and share this content, give us financial support if you can, feel free to forward this email to others—we need to grow this, and your help is absolutely needed!




  1. See at least my previous post on Goebbels, Brand Management, and Genocidal Myth Making for more discussion. ↩︎

  2. Read about the now-defunct Disinformation Governance Board from US DHS; G7 Rapid Response Mechanism discussed in Justin Trudeau says he has a plan to fight Russia’s disinformation by Toronto Star on 13 March, 2022; Jacinda Ardern heavily implying that free speech is now being weaponized and thus needs curtailing in Full speech: Jacinda Ardern addresses UN General Assembly on 24 September, 2022:

    But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms? To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?

    This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old.

    We recognised the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimise these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties - rather, it was a preservation of them.

    The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges